Ramayana series 3 – Shurapanakha’s manipulativeness – Exploiting others’ weaknesses doesn’t make us strong

Hare Krishna. Thank you for coming today evening and we are discussing a series on the Ramayana. Different human lessons that we can learn from various characters in the Ramayana.

The Ramayana describes broadly three distinct dynasties. In fact, we could say three different kinds of living beings. There are the Manavas, the Vanaras and the Rakshasas.

There are humans, monkeys and demons. Now, generally, English words do not really very precisely equate what is described in the scriptures. The word monkey does not really describe the Vanaras.

Because the Vanaras, many of them are extremely intelligent and they are best described as celestial apes. They are apes but they are celestial. Some of them are more intelligent, more powerful than human beings also.

Celestial refers to those who live at a higher level in the cosmos, belonging to the skies or the heavens. And the Rakshasas are not exactly demons. Because demon is, at least from the Bhagavad Gita's perspective, it is a mentality.

It is not just a race. It is not a racial designation. So technically the equivalent word of demons would be Asuras.

Asuri is a mentality. Now, where the Rakshasas are more precise, they are demons. But we could say demons is like a meta category and within that there can be humans also who are demonic.

So, for example, in the Mahabharata we have Duryodhana who is just a human being like the Pandavas. But he is demonic. So demonic is a mentality.

Whereas Rakshasa is actually also a physical body. It's also a race. And so Rakshasas are technically, they are what we could call today as cannibals.

Cannibals would be man-eaters, people who eat human flesh. And another name that is used for the Rakshasas in the Ramayana is Nishachara. Nisha is night.

Chara is those who move about. That means that they get strength at night and they attack at night. So while there are different kinds of living beings described in the epics, but overall psychologies are similar everywhere.

Ultimately, whichever species one may be in, people want pleasure, they want power, they want the same things that we human beings want. One of my friends is an ethologist. Ethologist is people who study animals, especially in their natural habitat.

And he said that animals are just like people. And if there is one big lion in a herd of lions, that lion wants that everybody else should offer their respects to him. So many of the things that we see in human society, humans may express them in a particular way.

Animals also have that. So even the demons have that. So Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita describes how the demonic mentality in the 16th chapter, 13th to 15th verses.

And there he says, आद्यो अभिजन्वानस्मी कोन्योस्ति सद्रुषो मया यक्षेदास्यामिमोधिष्य इत्यज्ञानविमोहितः So Krishna describes the mentality of the demoniac. And he says, असव्मयाहतः शत्रोर It begins with इदमध्यमयालभ्धम This much money I have earned now and this much I will earn. I got this scheme and I will earn money in this way.

इदम अस्तीदम अपिने भविष्यति पुनर्धनम् This is greed. So Krishna is actually describing in these three verses increasing demoniac mentality. The wanting wealth is just a natural human desire.

And when that becomes excessive, it is greed. But in the next verse he describes that everybody wants money, but some people for the sake of money, they are ready to go to any extremes. And what is that extreme he describes? असव्मयाहतः शत्रोर I have killed this enemy.

हनिष्ये चापरानपी I will kill that enemy also in future. And then in this way what will happen? I will become God. ईश्वरोहम अहम् भोगी I am the controller.

I am the enjoyer. सिद्धो अहम् बल्लवान सुखी In this way, I am perfect. I am powerful.

I am happy. And normally happiness is not enjoyed alone. If we are the wealthiest person in the world, we may have some happiness.

But if we are the only person in the world, then who will we show our wealth to? So the next verse describes that although that person wants to eliminate enemies, that person still wants admirers. आद्यो अभी जन्वानस्मी Just see how I am surrounded by so many aristocratic people who respect me. And then को अन्यो अस्ति सद्रुषो मया Who is there like me in this world? So this mentality is actually the mentality to be God.

Because it is described असमूर्धव There is only one person is there for whom there is no one equal to him or superior to him. And that is God. But when somebody thinks there is no one like me.

Now all of us have some speciality. And all of us are unique in our own ways. But that uniqueness is our individuality.

It is not our superiority over others. There is a difference. Each one of us is unique.

But that is our specialness. That is not our superiority over others. Just because we are individuals, we are separate.

We have our characteristics. But here, person wants to push others down and prove one's superiority. And Krishna tells, such a mentality is The people, after they do all kinds of vicious things, Then they put on a little show of religion.

याक्षे, दास्या, मिमोधिश्य They perform some yajnas. They give some charity. And then people clap and appreciate, Oh, you are such a charitable person.

You are such a religious person. मोधिश्य They get some joy. इत्ते अज्ञान विमोहितः Such a mentality is the mentality of those who are deluded by ignorance.

अज्ञान विमोहितः It's interesting. अज्ञान and मोह What is the difference between the two? Ignorance and illusion. You could say, ignorance means to not know.

And illusion means to know something to be the opposite of what it is. So, for example, if we are driving and our eyes are blindfolded, then we can't see anything ahead of us. But if we have got cataract or if we have got some other eye defect, by which we see distances distorted.

We see this car is far away but it's actually very close. Or that speed bump is close by and we think it's very far. So then that is deluded vision.

So we could say, illusion is ignorance squared. Ignorance means we can't see. But illusion means we can't see and we don't even know that we can't see.

To be blind is a problem. But to be not aware of one's blindness is an even bigger problem. अज्ञान विमोहितः People are deluded by this demoniac attitudes.

Now, why am I talking about this? If you look at the whole context of the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavad Gita is spoken before the Kurukshetra war is about to happen. And sometimes in a class or in a public gathering, some person starts describing some kind of mentality. Some people do like this.

And they start describing what this has been done. Now they don't mention the name but everybody knows who they are talking about. They make it such a way that nobody… I didn't mention anyone's name but everybody understands.

So from context, sometimes if a particular statement is being made, even if the statement is not specific, we can infer about what it is being referred to. So, now we could very well say that Krishna, when he is talking about this, he could very well be thinking about Duryodhana. Duryodhana had this greed, I want the kingdom.

And he was thinking, I want to eliminate the Pandavas, and I am going to sideline everyone else and I am going to get the kingdom. So of course this mentality is not limited to Duryodhana alone. It very well applies to Ravana also.

And Ravana had a sister. What was her name? Yeah, Shurpanakha. Now, Shurpanakha married another powerful demon.

This demon was also quite powerful. But Ravana wanted to form an alliance with him. And thus he got his sister married to him.

And that demon's name was Dushtabuddhi. So he was, as his name suggested, he was a demoniac. So he had a wicked mentality.

So Ravana formed an alliance and in the past, when marriages were done, marriages were not just between two people. It was all for, especially in royal families, it was for forming alliances. And in this case, even among demons there are dissensions, there are differences of opinion, there can be fights.

So he wanted to get Dushtabuddhi to become a Pandava of his own family so that he would not be a competitor. He would give him a share of the royal power but he would not be a competitor. But then, Ravana would go for some fights himself and he had to fight with some kings or some other rulers of the universe.

And some he would send Dushtabuddhi. And he found that Dushtabuddhi was extremely powerful. And whichever war he sent him to, Dushtabuddhi crushed his opponents.

And he, as he grew, as Dushtabuddhi came one after another victorious, Ravana started becoming insecure. And then, when he became insecure, he arranged for a whole conspiracy. He sent Dushtabuddhi out to fight against a formidable king.

And then he told the commander under Dushtabuddhi that when Dushtabuddhi goes ahead, you don't assist him. And Dushtabuddhi was slaughtered over there. And afterwards they went ahead and they defeated the enemy and then they portrayed it as if Dushtabuddhi had been martyred.

That he was such a great hero that he was killed in war. Naturally, when Shurpanakha came to know about this, she was devastated. But, soon rumours started trickling in that Dushtabuddhi had not been killed on the war by the enemy.

Dushtabuddhi had been killed by the plan of his own king. And, as Shurpanakha heard about this, and she was also a Rakshasi, she also had Shurud intelligence. She knew about the cruel nature of demons, including her own brother.

First she couldn't believe it. How can my own brother make me into a widow like this? But then, as she enquired more, as the rumours started trickling in, she became convinced that Ravana has arranged for my husband to be killed so that he would become the unchallenged ruler. And she felt infuriated by that.

Now she alone had no power by herself to take revenge. So, she decided she has to find some way by which she can take revenge. And she became mad.

She became mad first of all because she had lost her husband and secondly because she had been betrayed by her brother. And then she just couldn't bear to stay in Lanka. And then she left Lanka and she came nearby to Janasthan.

Janasthan was the outpost of Lanka in the southern part of India. And there she was staying with her brothers, Khar and Dushy. And she would wander about in the forest and whichever being she would see, she would, any animal which is of animal of prey, she would pounce on it and brutally kill it and then devour it.

So, she was naturally a Rakshasi. But because of her situation, she became extremely cruel. And she would wander around and Khar Dushy also knew that she was powerful in her own way.

So, they would also let her wander around. And then as she was wandering like this, she came, she was wandering and suddenly she heard, she smelled something which is unusual over there. She smelled the smell of human beings.

Now, in the animal kingdom, different animals have been endowed with different sensory skills. And many animals, they detect their prey by smell. And many animals even detect their predator.

A deer may detect the presence of a tiger also by smell. So, by smells when she detected, she thought. Now, when we eat food, there are some items which are regular.

Say, you know, we say dal, rice, sabji, chapati, that is regular. But some items are special. If we have sweet rice, if we have dosa, we have some items which are special.

So, for her, human flesh was a special delicacy. And she, wow, humans. Immediately her mouth started watering.

And she immediately sneaked by. And as soon as she sneaked by, she came in Dandagaranya. She came in Tapovan.

So, there in Dandagaranya, she came and Lakshman had formed a kutir over there, a small cottage. And there is a clearing in that area. So, she sneaked by, outside she took stock.

She saw Ram and Lakshman. First her eyes went to Ram. And as soon as she saw Ram, Ram was so powerful, so handsome.

She had such a regal presence, that immediately her desires changed. Now, her lunch box became her affair, her object of having an affair. Immediately, say, when our desires are not guided by Dharma, then our desires can change drastically and even our actions can change drastically.

Actually, something similar happens later in the Mahabharata also. When the Pandavas are in the forest for the first time, after they have been, they have saved themselves from the Varanavat forest, then Hidimbi sees Bhima. Now, when she sees Bhima, she is also attracted to him.

So, she has also come first to eat, get human flesh. She has been sent by her husband. Sorry, not her husband, her brother, Hidimba.

You know, you go and find out what is there. And then she comes and she is attracted to Bhima. Now, of course, she does not in any way attack.

Like Hidimba comes and attacks over there. And then Bhima overpowers Hidimba. And then Hidimbi, because she very, very fervently begs first to Yudhishthira and then to Kunti, then Hidimbi and Bhima get married and they have a son.

Who is that? Pratotka. Yeah. So that's a different situation.

Hidimbi never has any malevolent intention towards Bhima or any of the Pandavas. Now, in the case of Shurpanakha, however, now because she, her husband has also died quite some time ago, so she also is unseated. She also has her desires.

And then when she approaches Ram, at one level, initially, she thinks, oh, Ram will satisfy me. Now, when there are generally in the past times, when the marriages that happen, they happen in the same species. So normally say the Pandavas marry Hidrapati, Ram marries Sita.

But in some cases, the marriages may happen across species also. When such happen, at that time, if you see the Pandavas, when Bhima marries Hidimbi, or Arjun marries Ulupi, who is a Gandharvi, who is now a Kanya, then in those cases, generally those marriages, they live together till they have a child. And generally in other species, the Devatas and the Asuras are similar in that the children grow up quite fast.

And then because there is such a, you could say, cultural difference between the two species, so it's understood that they are not going to stay together for a long time. Once he has a child, then child will be there with the mother. And then periodically, Radhakrishna and his mother would come to meet the Pandavas.

Arjun, when he went later to scout, to win, to get tributes, he met his son and his mother, then his son and his wife. But so here, when Shurpanakha, she came, her idea was, she wanted to have her desire satisfied. And she came to Ram.

But in her case, she was already quite rootless. Rootless in the sense that she felt betrayed by her husband. And she was staying with Kharadushan.

But she also knew Kharadushan was not going to go against Ram. Against Ravan. So she was in a very agitated state of mind.

And she first approached Ram. Now she realized that as a Rakshasi, she will not be able to approach Ram. Ram would see her as an enemy.

So she changed her form. And she transformed herself into a very attractive woman. And when she became this attractive woman, then she approached.

Now in Krishna Nila also, there is a demoness who takes a very attractive form. Who is that? Bhutana, yes. Now Bhutana also comes in.

Normally, though we don't see, we can't immediately see people's heart. We see people's appearance. And the more demoniac we are, the more stock we put on people's appearance only.

Everybody, none of us can actually see anyone's heart right in the beginning. So our first impression will always be based on people's appearance. But as we interact with people more, then we need to go beyond appearance.

And then look at the substance. But for some people, if they are in extreme bodily consciousness, then they look only at the appearance and they never look beyond to the substance. So if we see, this is the weakness.

The more bodily consciousness means that the more people are attracted to the body and the body is the source of pleasure. The word Asura, there is a traditional, there is a Sanskrit meaning of that. That Asura.

Asura is one who are godly. Asura are those who are godly, ungodly. Now that is one kind of etymological meaning.

Sometimes some words, they are given just for illustrating certain meaning, some imaginative etymological analysis. Imaginative means, that is not how the word has originally originated. But that is also another way of understanding.

So Asura, if we separate into Ashu and Ra. Ashu means quickly. And Ra means enjoyment.

So Asura means those who want quick enjoyment. So they only look at the surface of things, something looks enjoyable, they just rush for it. This is how actually when the lord appears as Mohini Murthy, he deludes the demons.

Because he is very attractive. So those who are demoniac, they just look at other people's appearances and they also think that I just, if I have an attractive appearance, I can also, if I can put on an attractive facade, I can also captivate others. So similarly, so Putana also does the same thing.

Shurpanakha also does the same thing. And then Shurpanakha comes in. And then she approaches Ram.

And she straight propositions to him. She says that I am attracted to you and let us unite. And then Ram, just the day after he gets married, he, at that time, the kings would sometimes have many wives.

But Ram, the day after he gets married, he tells Sita, what wedding gift can I give you? I have you, that's all that I want. I don't want anything else. He says, I'll give you a wedding gift.

He says that you will be my only wife. And that's when he takes Ek Patni Vrata. So when he does that, at that time, now when Shurpanakha comes over here, he says that actually, I am already married to Sita.

He doesn't tell her that, that I have taken Ek Patni Vrata. Because generally, when we are discussing something with someone, we have to bring forth the point that will make the most sense to them. If you tell a demon, I have taken this word of honor, forget your honor.

What is the big deal about the word of honor? So Ram doesn't mention that to her. Generally, when we speak to anyone, we have to find out, even if we are trying to share Krishna Bhakti with someone, we have to find out which points in Krishna Bhakti will make sense to people. And we present that.

In any discussion, any argument, any persuasion that we have to do, to find out, okay, I may have this many things with me, this many points to make. But which point will make sense to that person? And that depends on what are the interests of that person. So, there is a traditional subhashita, which says that, basically, Sanskrit verse which says that, even the most competent clothes salesperson will not be able to sell any clothes in an assembly of naked sadhus.

If there are nagna babas, if there are some sadhus who are so renounced, and if they consider their renunciation has to be expressed externally, and they don't wear any clothes at all. They think that they wear only, they are called digambar, they wear only the directions as they dress. So, if somebody goes, the clothes salesperson, no matter how expert someone may be, they will not be able to sell.

So, when Ram is going to talk with Sivarpanakha, he is not interested in her proposal. But when he has to say no, he is very expert. He says, I have Sita already as my wife.

He points to Sita and he tells her that, if we unite, you will have to become the maidservant of Sita. And you are so powerful. You are so attractive.

For you to become a maidservant will be so demeaning. Now, this is the language Sivarpanakha understands. So, whenever we speak in a language that people understand, then communication happens.

And language is not just the language like English, Hindi, Marathi. Language is basically what people consider important. So, then Sivarpanakha starts thinking what to do.

And then she looks around and then she sees Lakshman. And Lakshman is also very attractive, very powerful, very handsome. And then he looks around and then says, is he single? So, he says, at least right now.

So, then immediately she approaches him. Now, when she approaches him, at that time, he tells her, he looks at Ram. Now, Lakshman is so totally devoted to the service of Ram that actually when Lakshman's wife Urmila wants to come with him to the forest and he tells her that, I will not be able to take care of you.

I am there to take care of Ram and Sita. She says, no, you don't have to take care of me. I will help you in taking care of Ram and Sita.

She says, no, if you are there, I will be worried about you. I will have concern for you. She says, no, no, you don't have to worry anything about me.

Now, then Lakshman also is very intelligent. He tells Urmila that, actually, I am conflicted right now. Because I have to serve my older brother, but I also have to serve my parents.

But I cannot be at both places. So, therefore, you stay at home and you serve my parents. And I will stay in the forest and take care of my brother.

Then, finally, she agrees. So, Lakshman has no intention of accepting any proposition from Shurpanakha. But, when two people know each other very well, then just by a little expression of the eyes, little signal from the eyes, little expression on the face, you can read what the other person is doing.

So, without any verbal communication, Lakshman understands that Ram is just trying to playfully end this proposition. So, he also goes along with the playful mood. And he tells her that, actually, if we unite, then I am a servant of Ram and Sita.

You will have to also become the servant of all of them. She says, no, I don't want to become a servant of anyone. She has come there to be the enjoyer.

She wants to be the enjoyer. She doesn't want to be a servitor of anyone. So, then she starts looking.

She has faced a no from both of them. Now, she feels very humiliated by that. And at one level, her psychology is understandable.

So, for a woman herself to approach someone and then to be rejected, it is quite hurtful. But still, everyone, no matter how hurt we are, we have to respond in a proper way, in a proportionate way. Generally, if we are hurt, say, if you are walking along a road and somebody steps on us, naturally we will feel hurt.

We just push them off. Don't hurt me like this. Now, if somebody is very vengeful, they will go there and stamp on their foot.

You stamped on my foot, I will stamp on your foot. Somebody, if somebody is so angry, how dare you stamp on my foot? They take out a knife and stab that person. That is outrageous.

Such a small thing, you cannot do that. So, generally, our response has to be proportionate to the action that the other person has done. But sometimes, when we become driven by our emotions, then our response becomes proportional not to the action, but to our emotion.

And then one can act in extremely disproportionate ways. This is what happens in the Mahabharata also, when Arjuna goes to the heavens, and there, Urvashi proposes to him. And Arjuna says, no, you are like a motherly figure for me, because you were the wife of my ancestor, Purura.

She says, no, no, these rules don't apply to me. But he says, no, they may not apply to you, but they apply to me because I don't belong to heaven, I belong to the earth. And she, now she is a Apsara, she is such a dancer, she is such an attractive person, that people beg for her favor.

And when she herself comes to Arjuna and Arjuna refuses, she becomes so angry, she is a heavenly being. So, although the Asuras and Devatas, both of them are powerful, but the Devatas are given power by which they can bless and they can curse. The Asuras, they can't curse, they are themselves a curse.

By their very existence, they bring misery upon people. Asuras are demons. So, then she curses Arjuna.

And the curse is that she tells him, you have refused to satisfy me, you have acted in an unmanly way, so you lose your manliness. And then, although that's a very great curse for a Kshatriya, but it works out to his favor. Because in the Agyatvas, he acts as a Bruhannala, a person of third gender, by which he is not detected.

But in this, so the point I am making is, that in this situation, when somebody experiences a rejection, then the person's reaction can be disproportionate. So, in her case, I think Shakespeare would have said, there is no anger in the world, there is no rage in the world as the rage of a woman scorned. So, the British thinker, either Shakespeare or Francis Bacon, somebody else has said that.

So, anyway, so Shurpanakha becomes angry. She starts thinking, she has seen Rama as a potential object for satisfying her desire. She has also seen Lakshmana as an object for satisfying her desire.

She says, neither has satisfied her desire. And why? She somehow uses her own logic and says, Sita is in the way. Rama is not coming to me because of Sita.

And she says, I have to get Sita out of the way. And all her sweet, charming appearance, in one moment it disappears. She just pounces on Sita and tries to strangle her.

And now Sita has also been observing what is going on. Suddenly out of the blue, and now the demoness, she is extremely powerful. She holds Sita in a death grip.

She can just strangle and kill Sita. So, Rama immediately tells Lakshmana, stop her. And then Lakshmana, in an immediate instinctive reaction, takes out his sword.

And he doesn't want, even in that moment, he could have actually killed her. And she was trying to murder, somebody was trying to protect. So, she could have done that.

But, he decides just to stop her. And to stop her, he locks off her nose. Now, she is a powerful demoness, but Lakshmana's sword is also powerful.

And as soon as he feels that wound, his nose is cut off. Now, she just falls back in anger. Now, in Hindi, naag kat jana.

That is a sign of humiliation. We use figuratively, because in the face of a person, the nose is considered to be one of the prominent features. And if the nose is cut off, then the person becomes disfigured.

So, it is not just disfigured, but also dishonored. So, literally disfigures, figuratively dishonors. And she becomes enraged.

And she just runs off. Now, when her nose is cut off like that, she realizes that she is not a match to both of these brothers. So, she immediately runs to her brothers.

And she gets Gharindu, she incites them. This is what they have done to me. How dare they do this to you? And they come out.

And when they come out and attack Shurpanakha, she tells that you kill all three of them. And after you kill them, you hand over their bodies to me. And he said that I will feast on their dead bodies.

That's her plan. So, this is Ravana's plan also. Ravana says that, he tells Sita that if you, later when Ravana abducts Sita, and Sita refuses to voluntarily submit to him, he says, I will give you one year period.

He says, I am going to enjoy you. If you don't submit voluntarily, then if I don't enjoy your body, sensually, I will enjoy it with my tongue. You don't have a big body, so I will eat you for breakfast.

So, Shurpanakha has a similar plan for the brothers, Ram and Lakshman. But then, when she is observing as Kharadushan along with their commander Trishara attack, and she finds that every one of them is just effortlessly killed by Ram alone. Lakshman also doesn't come to fight.

Because Ram tells Lakshman that Rakshasas were deceptive. So, you stay by the side and guard Sita. Because if they somehow come in and capture Sita, and they hold Sita hostage, then we will become paralyzed.

We will not be able to fight. So, Ram alone fights and overpowers her. Overpowers all of them.

When Shurpanakha sees this, she is outraged. She is first aghast. What is this happening? What kind of man is this? How can he kill all? She is of course grief struck to see her brothers being killed.

But she is frustrated because her desire to enjoy Ram is not fulfilled. Her desire to take revenge against Ram is not fulfilled. And her brothers are killed.

She is in this mad tumult of emotions. Then she just runs away from there. She doesn't know where to go, what to do.

As soon as first she is injured, she goes to Kharadushan. But when Kharadushan is killed, she doesn't immediately go to Ravan. Because there is still that tension between her and Ravan.

And first accompanies, who is a general who survives Ram's onslaught. Because he does not fight Ram. He watches and then he feels.

He reaches Ravan first. Shurpanakha is just wandering, wandering, wandering. What to do? She is crazed.

And then she hatches a plan. Her plan is that she says that I want to get back against Ram and Lakshman. Because they have rejected me and humiliated me.

And I want to get back against Ravan. Because he has made me a widow. If I can create enmity between the two of them.

If Ravan wins, I will get revenge against Ram and Lakshman. But she thinks that Ram and Lakshman are so powerful, if they kill Kharadushan, they will kill Ravan also. If they kill Ravan, then I will get my revenge against Ravan.

Either way, I will be the winner. Either way, I will be the winner. So, there are, you see in the Ramayana and Mahabharata, there are people who have their own access to grind.

They have their own agendas. And then they act as if they are giving good counsel. So, who is the person who sets fires in the Mahabharata? Shakuni, yes.

Shakuni sets fires. Similarly, in the Ramayana, it is Shurpanakha. Who does like that? So, initially when Akampana goes and tells what has happened, Ravan is furious and he says, I am going to kill this impudent human.

But Akampana says, his power is formidable. Better leave him alone. Then, he is still thinking about it.

He decides to go to Marich. He decides that I have to take revenge. How can I not take revenge? So, he thinks if I cannot face him face to face, I will plan something else.

So, he goes to Marich to ask him for some assistance. Marich can create some illusion. But Marich tells him, Marich only hears the name of Ram itself.

He is filled with fear. In fact, the Ramayana says that if Marich is so fearful, just hears the syllable Ra, he becomes fearful. Then, he tells Marich, which enemy of yours has advised you to fight against Ram? He is also intelligent.

If you tell somebody, don't do this. Who are you to tell me don't do this? So, it's generally when we have to persuade people, it's very important that we present things in a way that doesn't come off as insulting to that person, disrespecting that person. So, when I was learning public speaking, maybe 20-25 years ago, I was still learning, but when I was initially learning, so one of the principles they told us is that if you are speaking something and you feel the audience is not understanding, never ask them, do you understand? Because who will want to admit I don't understand? It's insulting to oneself to say I don't understand what you are saying.

So, a better way to say it is, am I making myself clear? So, if we say that, this is not clear, then we can explain. So, Maricha is also intelligent. He doesn't say don't do this.

He says, which enemy of yours advised you to do this? So, then when he tells about his Ram's power, and he says that, actually, this Ram, he shot me long ago with a blunt arrow. And that blunt arrow was shot with such force that I was thrown a long, long distance away. And since then, I've been living in fear that that blunt arrow will be followed by a sharp arrow afterwards.

So, he says, don't antagonize Ram in any way. So, he just comes back. But then Shurpanakha comes over there.

And when Shurpanakha comes, she just tells a completely different story. When she tells the story that, recently some devotees asked me to write a biography of a senior devotee. And when I started inquiry reading, I have written about 20 books I have written, on different sub 25 books almost, on different subjects.

But I have not written a biography. When I started looking about how biographies are written, one of the things I realized is that, for this, in history, writing history is extremely difficult. Because if you ask two people what happened, they can give completely different narratives.

In one narrative, it will appear as if this person is so good, and that person is all problematic. And if you tell the other person, this person is so good, that person is so terrible. So, it's almost if you have to write history, it's almost like before you can write history, you have to become a detective.

And find out who is saying right, what is right and who is saying, what is wrong and what who is saying. So, that's why generally, if anybody comes and tells us something, this person did like this, this person did like this, this person did like this, it's extremely important to hear the other side of the story, before we pass judgment. Now, it's not that, in Shurpanakha's case, she was intentionally biased.

Sometimes some people may not be biased at all. But it's just that, you know, we all perceive things from one perspective. And we just can't perceive things.

It's a human limitation. We can try to understand things from the other perspective. But by default, we'll perceive things from our perspective only.

So, sometimes it's just unconscious, and sometimes it's conscious. So, in her case, it was conscious. So, it's a matter of just the same point.

If you make in a slightly different way, the meaning can get completely changed. Say, if somebody asks us, our opinion about some person, say, I want to give this person some responsible service. What do you think about that person? We could say, okay, they had problems earlier, but now they're doing well.

Or we could say, they're doing well now, but they had problems earlier. The facts are the same. But the sequence makes a complete difference.

They had problems, that doesn't matter, now they're doing well. They're doing well now, but don't get carried away by that. They had problems earlier.

So, completely same facts, but just a different emphasis. In writing or in speaking, when we speak, usually the point that we tell at the end of the sentence, that's what stays in people's mind. So, if we say the negative part at the end of the sentence, that's what stays in people's mind.

If we say the positive part at the end of the sentence, that will remain in people's mind. So, Shurpanakha does her own, this is called in today's political languages, spin-doctoring. Now, she did a spin-doctoring.

Now, that means, she gave her own spin to the whole story. And she told Ravan, first she came and Ravan saw her disfigured, he said, who has done this to you? And she told, it is Ram who did this. She tried to goad Ravan by telling him, your own sister has been dishonored like this, and you are sitting here doing nothing.

Now, Ravan couldn't very well just sit there like that. But he asked, what happened? Why didn't they do like this? And then she told him, I had gone there, and then Ravan got excuses. Why did you have to go to them? You started it all, and you got punished.

And then Ravan tried to wash off responsibility. But then, Shurpan Kha came with a spin-doctor. Did you know, I had gone there? I had gone there for your sake.

For my sake? He said, Ram and Lakshman, Ram has an extremely beautiful wife, Sita. And when I saw her, I felt, she would be the perfect queen for you. And I had gone there just to get her for you.

Now, there are lies, and there are white lies. White lies, the lies mean there is maybe 50% true, 50% false. There is 90% true, 10% false.

There is 100% false. But the only truth is, she had gone there. But the purpose why she had gone there, it is completely false.

She had gone there for her own enjoyment. Ravan was not there in her mind also at that time. She said, I had gone there to get her for you.

And then she started describing more and more of the beauty of Sita. And as she started describing the beauty of Sita, she started, Ravan started getting more and more agitated. And then, the Bhagavad Gita explains how contemplation on sense objects destroys our intelligence.

ध्यायतो विशयान् पुम्सः संगस्तेषु पजायते संगात् संजायते कामा कामात् क्रोधो भिजायते क्रोधात् भवति सम्मोह सम्मोहात् स्मुति विब्रम स्मुति भ्यमशात् बुद्धि नाशो बुद्धि नाशात् प्रणश्यति So, is that? You contemplate on the sense objects? So, we look at something. ध्यायतो विशयान् पुम्सः When the contemplation happens then, Hey, that's nice. संगस्तेषु पजायते And then as we keep desire, we keep contemplating, the desire becomes, I want it.

That's nice. I want it. And then, Who says I can't get it? कामात् क्रोधो भिजायते Who can stop me from getting it? क्रोधात् भवति सम्मोह Then, even in the past, we have got into a lot of trouble because of doing certain actions.

But, our sense of right and wrong, our sense of beneficial, unbeneficial, it's all swept away in an illusion. सम्मोहत् स्मृति विब्रह्म Then even if we have heard some past cautionary notes, some past stories, in every culture, there are cautionary notes, don't be too greedy, don't be too lusty, don't be too angry. We have heard such, but all that smruti gets lost.

Our experience, others experience. स्मृति ब्रह्मशाद बुद्धि नाशो Our intelligence is based on our remembrance. The remembrance is not necessarily about facts, necessarily, but it is about learning experiences.

बुद्धि नाशाद प्रणश्यति We fall down, प्रणश्यति, we become destroyed. So, if we consider a hill, on a hill, if it's filled with snow, it's a cold area, it's wintry, and the hill slope is covered with snow, and on top, a small snow pebble is formed. And the snow pebble is there, it is so small, that if a person is walking along, that person can just kick it with their toe, and the snow pebble will fall apart.

But then, as it starts coming down, as it starts rolling down, it gains mass, and it gains momentum. And as it gains mass and momentum, it becomes bigger and stronger. And by that time, that snowball rolls down on the ground, it might have become a giant snowball.

The same person who by a flip of a toe could have crushed it, now that snowball can roll down and knock over that person and crush that person also. So, similarly for us, at the stage of contemplation, the desire is just like a snow pebble. And it's nice.

But when it starts rolling down from contemplation to captivation, then obsession, then irritation, who says I can stop it? Then delusion. Then there is stupefaction. Who says I cannot? Then there is actually oblivion, we forget everything in the past.

Then stupefaction, we lose our intelligence. And then there is self-destruction. So, this snow pebble, as it goes down, down, down, it becomes more and more difficult to stop it.

So, in this case, what Shurpanakha does is that she triggers by her descriptions the desire within Ravana's mind. And then as she keeps describing, and Ravana already is a lecherous person. He is a lusty person.

As he keeps hearing, hearing, hearing, he becomes more and more agitated. And he becomes more and more agitated, the desire starts going down. The desire starts becoming bigger and bigger.

And by that time, when it becomes a snow pebble, buddhi na shraddha, so he says I must get it, whatever the cost. So, today also we live in a world where we are exposed to so many objects. And they trigger desires within us.

And if we allow ourselves unfiltered contemplation on the objects that the world shows before us, then our desires can also dominate us. And they can overpower us. So, when this happens, then Ravana says I am going to get Sita.

And then the whole conspiracy moves forwards. He uses Maricha and Maricha is surprised to see Ravana come back again. And he says I want you to help me get Sita.

But just now I told you, don't antagonize Ram. He said that I have not come here to get instruction from you. I have come here to give instruction.

He dismisses his objections. And then when Sita is abducted, at that time, now when Shurpanakha, she, the Ramayana does not describe much about her afterwards. So, Shurpanakha, when the war happens, Shurpanakha does not come out to fight against Ravana, fight against Ram at all.

So, she observes. And eventually, when Ravana is killed, then at that time, she thinks I will be satisfied. But then Ravana does not fall alone.

Her anger was only at Ravana. But Ravana is such a demon that he actually sends all his commanders and generals, everyone to fight first. And all of them are killed one by one by one.

And when Shurpanakha sees her cousin's sons killed, her cousin's husbands killed, she sees her whole dynasty getting destroyed. What did I do? What did I do? And eventually even Ravana is killed. She thinks that I got revenge.

But she gets no pleasure by that. Because it has come at too great a cost. She is lost.

Something similar happens to Shakuni also. Shakuni also has his agenda. Shakuni is a whole different character.

I won't go into it too much. But Shakuni feels slighted because when Bhishma comes to ask for Gandhari's hand to be married to the Kuru dynasty, he expects that she will get married to the Kuru king. But then Bhishma feels that she is the first bride that he has got for his nephew.

And then he offers her to Dhritarashtra. And he feels that Dhritarashtra is blind. Dhritarashtra has not only become the king, so how dare he feels as if my sister has been deprived.

And he decides that I will cause distress to Bhishma. And this dynasty has deprived my sister of the pleasure of being a queen. And then when she puts on a blindfold on herself, he feels even more angry that she is reduced to blindness because of this match.

Now Gandhari accepts her situation. But Shakuni manipulates. Shakuni doesn't accept.

And what happens? Shakuni has several sons also. Uluka is one of his sons. And Uluka is killed.

He is killed on the 17th day. And Shakuni's Gandhar soldiers are also killed. His commanders are killed.

His friends are killed. And finally on the 18th day, Shakuni is also killed. So he loses everything.

So if somebody tries to manipulate others, they don't gain by that. Sometimes we may know somebody's weaknesses and we may try to use that knowledge of their weaknesses to manipulate others. But using others' weaknesses against others doesn't make us strong.

It is overcoming our own weaknesses that makes us strong. It is going inwards and overcoming what weaknesses we have. But neither Shurpanakhan nor Shakuni ever do that.

Shurpanakha, what was her weakness? Yes, it was horrible that Ravan did something like that to her. But she, instead of trying to seek revenge and create conflict, it simply aggravated things. Ultimately the whole Rakshasa dynasty was destroyed.

We all have certain weaknesses. And if we live in a community, we live in a family, then over a period of time we also come to know other people's weaknesses. And we may start using their weaknesses to fulfill our agendas.

Actually if we know other people's weaknesses, we should protect them from their weaknesses. Not that use their weaknesses against them. We sometimes think that I have to get this person down so that I can go up.

But instead we see that we are all together, we are all in the same boat. And if the boat sinks, it may be that one person sinks first and we sink later. But we are all going to sink.

So if we, rather than trying to exploit other people's weaknesses, if we work on overcoming our own weaknesses, then we will become better. Exploiting other's weaknesses and fulfilling our agendas may give us a sense of success and power. But it will never give us satisfaction.

However, overcoming our own weaknesses, will is what will truly give us satisfaction. And Shorpanakha unfortunately never gets that. And she lives a very devastated life when her whole kingdom is destroyed.

And she knows that it's because of my own manipulations. So through Shorpanakha, actually what is learned over here? There are many different points which could be learned. But the important thing is that manipulators never gain.

Manipulators, they end up losing. Because when somebody becomes manipulative, over a period of time, people also understand this person is manipulative. Nobody trusts the manipulator.

And then they just become lonely, they become isolated. Ultimately, the same, we are all actually being manipulated by time. Time is sending us all towards death.

So we can manipulate and control others, but how much is the use of manipulating anyone? Because we are ourselves, Bhagavatam gives the example that just as wind pushes a cloud and the cloud cannot resist. So the wind is pushing a cloud. Similarly, we are all being pushed by time towards death.

Now this example indicates that the cloud is big and visible. The wind is invisible. Although the wind is invisible, its force is inexorable.

It's not resistible at all. It will just keep pushing. So rather than trying to manipulate and control others, we understand that we are all being ourselves pushed by inexorable time.

And if we focus on connecting with Krishna, on strengthening ourselves by connecting with Krishna, then we can come out of this world, where even if nobody is consciously manipulating us, we are being pushed in certain directions against our will by the forces of time. But by devoting ourselves to Krishna, we can rise beyond whatever weaknesses we have. And we can ultimately rise beyond the force of time.

And we can attain Krishna's eternal abode, where there is no manipulation. There is simply pure, eternal, loving reciprocation. To summarize, I spoke today about Shurpanakha's manipulations.

And started by talking about how the divine and demoniac, it's not just a physical type, it's a psychology, it's an attitude. And the demons, rakshasas are a type of demons, who don't just have a demonic mentality, but they also have a man-eating attitude. They are cannibals.

And Shurpanakha, she was manipulated, or rather her husband was manipulated, Dushtipuddi, and that's why he was sidelined. He was sidelined and eliminated by Ravan. I talked about the demoniac mentality, how everybody has greed, but greed to the extent of murdering others.

That is what is very demoniac. And that's what Ravan had, Duryodhana had. So, that's what Ravan did with Dushtipuddi.

And Shurpanakha, in her madness, she wanted revenge. So, when she saw Ram and Lakshman, when she smelled human smell first, she thought, I'll get some delicacy to eat. But when she saw Ram and Lakshman, she had to propose to them.

But when she was rejected, naturally the sting of rejection will hurt. But her reaction was far more disproportionate. She just tried to kill Sita, strangle Sita.

Lakshman stopped her by cutting off her nose. She felt humiliated and she tried to incite Karan and Dushyant. But when they were killed, she initially went mad with anger and grief.

But then she hatched a scheme that I will get a win-win situation. If I can incite Ravan against Ram. If Ravan wins, I'll get revenge against Ram and Lakshman for disfiguring me.

If Ram wins, then I'll get revenge against Ravan for making me a widow. But her manipulation, to manipulate Ravan, what did she do? She spun her own story. That she had gone for getting Sita for Ravan.

That is complete false. And she incited Ravan. We talked about how contemplation is like a snow pebble forming.

And then the more we contemplate, the snow pebble becomes bigger and bigger. Till it becomes like a snow boulder. Just knocks down people completely.

So like that Ravan's intelligence was destroyed. And although Shurpanakha eventually got her revenge against Ravan. But it came at a far bigger cost.

That the whole Rakshasa dynasty was destroyed. So we don't become stronger by exploiting other people's weaknesses. We become stronger by overcoming our own weaknesses.

We are all being manipulated by the power of time. Pushed towards inexorable death. And the best way to overcome it is by rising beyond time.

By practicing bhakti, connecting ourselves with Krishna. And going beyond this world of manipulation to the world of eternal ecstatic reciprocation. Thank you very much.

Hare Krishna. Any questions or comments? So what Shurpanakha should have been done to satisfy? She got angry. So what might have been better? With whom? With Ravan or Ram or what? Ram.

She is angry with his brother. So what she might have done? Instead of whatever she has done. So if she feels angry with Ravan, what could she have done? It's a difficult question.

Sometimes in life, when we have been wronged, we may feel that it is our responsibility to punish the wrongdoer. And many movies or novels are about that. You did this.

The whole movie is about a revenge saga. You did this to me and I will get back to you. But then that revenge saga never ends.

Revenge saga never ends. One person did this to another person, that person did this to another person. Goes on generation after generation after generation.

So if we are in a position of power, or if there is a rule of law where we can seek justice from someone, then we can, if we have been wronged, if we have the power and the inclination, then we can seek redressal for the wrong. Justice is ultimately always done. Because the law of karma always works.

And even if we don't take revenge, by the law of karma, people will be punished for what they have done. Some people say that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If you hurt me, I will hurt you back to that extent.

But actually if everybody starts following an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, most of the world will soon become blind and toothless. Now this does not mean that just anybody can do any wrong and it has to be forgiven. See basically when somebody has done something wrong and they have to be punished for that.

What is the purpose of punishment? Broadly we can say there are three purposes. One is that the wrongdoer needs to be curbed from doing something similar again. The victim's suffering is taken seriously.

And a proportionate suffering is given. Not so that just to take revenge. But it is in any society there has to be a system of regulation.

And if a victim is told just forgive whatever has happened. That means you are not taking their suffering seriously. And third is an example has to be set for the rest of society.

Say there is a victim and a victimizer. There is a victim, victimizer and there is the rest of society. So the victimizer has to be stopped.

The victim's pain has to be acknowledged. And society has to be instructed. So broadly these three purposes are there.

But these three purposes are not always in the hands of an ordinary person to do. Generally it is the responsibility of the Kshatriyas to do it. The Kshatriyas means the rulers of society.

So in the past there were kings who would be the judges also. Now we have the legislative system, the legal system for that. If somebody starts taking the law in their own hands.

Then that is called vigilante justice. Some people become vigilantes. You have done something wrong, I will punish you outside the court.

That can lead to chaos in society. So if we have the capacity to bring a law breaker to justice. We can do that but not in a sense of a personal agenda.

Not personal vendetta. The Pandavas fought against the Kauravas. It was not to take revenge.

It was to establish Dharma. If their purpose had been to take revenge. Then they would not even have considered a peace proposal.

So they not only considered a peace proposal. But they actually had Krishna offer it on the most accommodating terms. So revenge was not the agenda.

Ram was also not interested in revenge. Because he sent a message to Ravan that if you give Sita back. We will just end everything.

There is no need to carry this further. But Ravan was not ready to listen at all. So therefore it is important that if we have the capacity to take some action against the wrongdoer.

We do that. Action in a proper legal way. So now in her case Ravan is the law.

So what can she do? So at such times we just have to move on with our own life. See that as a terrible chapter in our life. Maybe we did some karma in the past because of which we got that reaction.

And we move on with our life. If we reduce our life to taking revenge against someone. Then that vengeful mentality itself will become our enemy.

Because our mind is like a mechanical device. Whatever emotion we hold on tightly in the mind. That emotion starts becoming our default emotion over a period of time.

And even if somebody takes revenge against person X or person Y. Person doesn't get relief. Because that vengefulness has become their default disposition. And then soon after that they will find some other wrong which somebody else has done.

And they will take revenge against that. So that just becomes a vengefulness is not at all a healthy emotion. So if for establishing Dharma.

For having the law of order. For that purpose if we can do something we can. Otherwise we just let it go and move on with our life.

So like based on the story because they have chosen the path of taking revenge. What would have happened if they have chosen the path of forgiveness? By they means Surpanakha or whom? Anyone. Anyone.

Like Surpanakha you and Lakshmi would have stopped taking revenge. Yeah if they had chosen the path of forgiveness. So much destruction could have been avoided.

In general there are some issues which can be ended by forgiveness. See sometimes some people say I will never forgive this. This is unforgivable.

And some people say that I just forgive anything. We sometimes think of forgiveness as a utopian thing. Because we feel that how can I forgive somebody who has done something wrong.

That's also understandable. So it's not that forgiveness is the solution to all problems. It is that if somebody overall has normally lives a respectable honorable life.

And then on one occasion they do something which we find terribly wrong. Then holding that against them for the rest of their life. That is unnecessary.

So now it was not Bhishma had no intention of debilitating, depriving Gandhari. He had no intention. Shakuni felt that if I have an alliance with the Kuru kingdom my prestige will increase.

So it was his problem. So he could just have overlooked that and Gandhari had accepted and moved on. So something is a one time mistake.

Then there is no need to hold it against the other person. But if something is repeated. Then we have to, we may not want to take revenge but we have to protect ourselves.

From being hurt again and again by that person. So forgiveness doesn't mean that we let the other person do whatever they are doing no matter how much it hurts us again and again. So there is a difference between forgiving someone and trusting someone.

Forgiveness is for the past. Trust is for the future. What you did in the past, I am not going to hold it against you.

But if somebody has hurt us terribly in some way. We can't open ourselves to them and again risk being hurt. So forgiveness can be given but trust will have to be earned.

And for that they may have to act in a trustworthy way. If they choose to act in a trustworthy way then gradually the relationship can be restored to its former strength. And a trust will come by that.

So if in the case of, in certain cases it's an occasional wrong or imagined wrong. Then just forgiving it and moving on in life can avoid a lot of unnecessary conflicts. But it is, it has to be seen according to situation to situation.

Life doesn't come with a one size fit all solution. There are certain situations when forgiving ends the matter. But sometimes in some situations forgiving may perpetuate the matter.

Because the other person starts feeling that I can just go on doing this. No matter what you do. You are not going to do anything.

And forgiving is not weakness. If somebody thinks of forgiving as weakness then they are in illusion. That's why we need to separate forgiving and trusting.

Actions need to have consequences. The consequences doesn't mean that we have to hold, have an agenda to take revenge. But we do need to protect ourselves.

So forgiveness is meant first of all to free ourselves from the vengeful mentality. My life is meant for better things. I don't want to just get back at you.

But another thing is forgiveness is also meant to help the other person become free from the defensive mentality. You did like this. No, no, I didn't do like this.

It's not like that. But if something wrong has been done, there has to be some attempt at least to prevent the recurrence of that wrong. And that means that the person has to change.

If they are not ready to change, then we might just have to decide I'm going to keep a distance from here. And so that I don't want to be hurt again. So forgiveness can in many situations actually minimize conflicts substantially.

Because in most of our close relationships, it's not that people have an agenda against us. It's not that people are malevolent. Whenever we are in a close relationship, we all want that relationship to give us shelter, satisfaction, strength.

And even if sometimes somebody commits a mistake repeatedly, if it is not a very serious mistake, then there's no need to hold it against them again. This weakness this person has, I have to learn to live with it. Don't harp on it.

So at least in close relationships, forgiveness can act as a very powerful, you could say, friction eliminating material. Like you can put some grease or something. When two parts rub against each other, they create a noise.

So forgiveness can act as a grease which prevents unnecessary friction from producing too much noise. Any other questions? Oh, yes. Ravan and Shripanka only.

Why did he have to destroy almost the entire Raksha dynasty? Because the soldiers were forced to fight them. If they deserted them, Ravan would certainly punish them. But if they fought, Ram would certainly kill them.

Yeah, good question. So why did Ram not just punish Ravan straight? Why did he have to fight against the Rakshasa dynasty? See, Ram did not want to fight against anyone. Ram just wanted to protect Sita.

And that's why he, let's end the past, he offered a peace proposal first and Angada first. And Sugriva also went at one time before that. Hanuman himself also said, give Sita back.

But Ravan did not listen. Now as far as the soldiers were concerned, when Vibhishan was considering his options, Vibhishan very fervently requested and treated and even begged Ravan, just give Sita back. Otherwise our whole dynasty will be destroyed.

Then Ravan very derisively dismissed and insulted Vibhishan. Vibhishan contemplated that I have three options now. One is that I can try to stage an internal coup, internal revolution and overthrow Ravan and gain power and then hand Sita back and avoid this war.

Other option is that I don't want to stand and be a mute witness to this terrible atrocity. I can just leave and I go to the Himalayas and take renounced order. And third he says, now for both these options there are problems.

Second he felt it to be a responsibility for him because he was a part of the royal dynasty and he had responsibility to his citizens. First he realized that he did not have enough influence, enough followers to stage a successful revolution. Why? Because Ravan was extremely powerful and most people they lived in fear of him.

And they knew that if they were caught by making a coup like that, they would meet a very terrible death. And moreover because Ravan had been successful, he had made the kingdom prosperous and he had not been defeated before. So most of the soldiers thought that we are going to win.

So very few would actually want to go against their king. They felt the only option for me left is I have to go to the side of Ram and tell him that your enemy team is not with the Rakshasas. It is only with a particular Rakshasa and within the Rakshasa ranks also you have supporters.

And thus when Vibhishan went to Ram's side, the first thing that Ram did was that Ram coronated Vibhishan as the king of Lanka. This was an outrageous gesture. You could say it was outrageously confident.

He says the king is there, Ravan is the king and he has already coronated the next king. But Ravan heard this and he was thunderstruck. It is like somebody is the serving prime minister and somebody else gives the Bhava of the present prime minister to someone else.

So Ravan is thunderstruck and then Ravan tries to downplay it. And he says what is this? One beggar has coronated another beggar. He just dismisses it.

But what Ram did by that is he not only fully accepted Vibhishan on his side, but by coronating Vibhishan as the king, he not only expressed his confidence that he was going to win, but that he had nothing against Lanka. He was not planning to destroy Lanka. He was not planning to annex Lanka.

Annex means make it a part of Ram's kingdom only. He wanted a Rakshasa only to rule Lanka. So Ram in that sense minimized the damage.

There is no way at that particular situation which Ram would have challenged Ravana for a one to one duel and Ravana would have agreed. If Ravana had been ready to agree to a one to one duel, why would he have abducted Sita separately? Because he wanted to avoid a one to one confrontation. That's why he had gone behind his back to get Sita.

So that option for a one to one confrontation was not there at all. So eventually the Ramayana describes that after Ravana fell, then when Ram and the Vanaras entered into Lanka, they didn't plunder Lanka. They did not attack any of the citizens of Lanka.

There was a very smooth transfer of power to Vibhishan and then Vibhishan used the wealth and opulence of Lanka to take care of all the victims who were there on both sides, the Vanara side as well as the Rakshasa side. So basically the war was fought in such a way that the certain amount of violence was unavoidable and Ram did not in any way maximize the violence but minimized it. Good question.

Thank you. Hare Krishna. So Ram was killed by, Ram killed Vali in a very dubious way.

So what was the reason for that? That can be understood at many different levels. First is that, let's look at what Ramayana itself says. Vali himself was outraged when he was fighting with Sugriv and Ram shot him from behind.

And Vali actually says, Sugriv is evil minded. And he says, Ram, I had heard you are virtuous. By associating with Sugriv you are also becoming evil minded.

So then Ram says that you acted as an aggressor against your own brother. In the Vedic culture there is an understanding that normally if a war is to be fought, the war is to be fought among equals and both of them have to be alert and they have to fight. But if somebody is an aggressor, somebody is a criminal, normally if somebody is a criminal, they have to be arrested, they have to be brought before the court and then they have to be tried and then they have to be punished.

But if somebody is a terrible criminal, the government makes you out of shoot at sight. There is no such person, such a terrible criminal that we can't have the normal process of bringing before the shoot at sight. So atatainas, those who are aggressors are like that.

There is a shoot at sight that is allowed in extreme situations. So in the case of Vali, what was his crime? Generally in a joint family setting, the older brother takes the place of the father. The oldest brother.

So Sugriv served Vali just like he would have served their father, Rukhsar Raj. And Sugriv was always there with Vali to help him in every situation. But then because of an unfortunate misunderstanding between them, Sugriv thought Vali had been killed.

And Vali came back and Vali thought that Sugriv has usurped the kingdom from me. Then Vali did not give Sugriv any chance for clarification. Just attacked Sugriv and he drove him out of the kingdom.

He took away the kingdom from him, took away royal comforts from him and even took away Sugriv's wife. And that was almost like incest. Because I said the older brother is like a father.

So Ram told him that you have committed a grievous crime against your brother. And as a servant of Bharat who is the ruler of Ayodhya, I have to administer justice. And that's why I punished you.

As an aggressor, because you were a grievous aggressor, you needed to be punished. Now having said that, this is actually an elaborate argument. This is the major argument.

But at the end of it, when Ram completes his argument, Ram tells Vali, if you feel after this that I have acted unfairly, I will take out this arrow and I will give you back your wife. So now along with that, this is a circumstantial reason. Circumstantial reason means that Vali had done something wrong.

Another reason over there also was that Vali had got a benediction. And by that benediction, there are many people who try to seek immortality in different ways. So he had sought a benediction that if anybody fights against me, half of their power will come to me.

So what would happen by that is anybody is fighting against them, he already has his own huge power and he gets half of the power of the opponent. And he will always become more powerful than his opponent. And that's how he had actually overcome Ravan also.

And that's why Ravan had agreed to a treaty with him. So in that case, of course Ram does not have to follow any such vow. Because he is the giver of all power.

He is not under it. But generally if a devata or someone has given some power to a particular being, the Lord doesn't directly reject or violate that benediction. He honors that and he finds a way out of it.

So that was also a reason why Ram didn't directly confront Vali. Now when Ram told Vali that I can give your life back to you. So then Vali, actually his heart is transformed.

At the back of his mind somewhere he also knew that maybe I have done something wrong. Maybe I have not treated Sugriva fairly. And his wife Tara also told him.

You are brothers, end this conflict, get him back. But he never listened to her. So then Vali's transformation is quite inspiring.

Vali says that deaths, we all get many. Lives I have got many. But a death like this in your presence is rare indeed.

So he says I will accept death. And then not only does he accept death, he seeks forgiveness from Sugriva for whatever he has done. And then he has been blessed with a jewel necklace by his father Indra.

And he had a terrestrial father and celestial father. So terrestrial father was Aksharaj and celestial father was Indra. So Indra had given him this jewel necklace and because of that jewel necklace being present in his, the jewel necklace had this prediction that as long as anybody would be wearing the jewel necklace, that person would not die.

So that's why although Ram's arrow was so powerful, Ram is known as Amoghasharam. His arrow never misses his target. But Vali was alive through it all.

Then he took out his jewel necklace and he could easily have given it to Angad. It would have been expected. He knew it's his son.

But he wanted to atone for the wrong that he had done. Not atone, make amends for the wrong that he had done to Sugriva. And that's why he gave that necklace to Sugriva.

And the moment that necklace left his hands, life left his body. So it was a very graceful end. Sugriva, Vali himself was the victim of that perceived injustice.

And if Vali doesn't hold any grudge against Ram, Vali doesn't consider that what Ram had did was wrong, then he understands the situation much better than what we do. That's why we don't have to see that as a wrong from Ram. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Correct, yes.

Correct. Okay, that's possible. Was it that Vali and Ravan had a pact and if Ram had to fight against Vali and Ravan together, it would have been impossible.

That's why Ram had to remove Vali. Well, it could be at that particular point. If we see in the Ramayana's narrative, Ram did not even know where Ravan was.

Ravan's kingdom was in Lanka but at that time we did not have Google Maps. So actually where Ravan was, they didn't know. Ravan's kingdom, where it was, they didn't know.

And there is no clear knowledge at that particular point, at least the way Ramayana describes. You see, there are certain inferences we can make from certain situations. But those are, we are ascribing motives to certain characters.

If we look at the characters themselves, then at that time whether Ram even knew about the pact between Vali and Ravan and whether Vali would come to the… No, there is… No, that's what I am saying. The first time that pact is mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana is later when Ravan sends his messenger to Sugriva. And Ravan tells Sugriva, you know, Vali and we had a pact together and we can continue our pact.

I have not harmed you in any way. You just leave from here. So from my reading of the Valmiki Ramayana, that is the first time that pact is mentioned.

So later on, a posteriori, we can analyze in different ways. But at that point, Ram's primary purpose was to correct the wrong which had been done to Sugriva. And Sugriva had said that I will assist you in finding Sita.

So that's all that we know. If you want to ascribe some further motives, then that is like we using our analytical ability, we are not reading from the epic. We are reading into the epic.

Reading from the epic means this is a text and this is what the text is saying. But reading into the epic means that we start reading certain things which are actually, they may not be there at all. And sometimes this kind of reading can lead to serious misunderstandings.

I was in South India and that time I was giving a class and somebody had raised a question. Somebody said that there is a message going on WhatsApp. Somebody said that, you know, I, if somebody wants to have a brother, let them have a brother like Ravana.

And he was ready to lay down his life for his sister. Now this is something which we are reading. Was Ravana ready to lay down his life for his sister or was Ravana ready to lay down his life for Sita? So we may read something into scripture which may actually not be there.

And what has happened is that because the Ramayana and Mahabharata to some extent that these are very widely known books. And that's why many authors when they want to write the Ramayana or they want to write the Ramayana and Mahabharata, they have to come up with something new. And they try to come up with some new analysis.

And by coming up with that new analysis they try to sell their books. So, you know, I answer questions online. There is a website of question and answers called Quora.

So there I answer questions on the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. So the one question which had got the maximum views was that, somebody had asked this question, did Draupadi love Karna? Now it's completely absurd. Karna was the person who suggested that Draupadi be disrobed.

So, now why would Draupadi love Karna of all people? But apparently several authors have imagined their own retelling of the Mahabharata with that idea that when she was being dishonored, she was thinking, Oh, if only I had accepted Karna, Karna had been my husband, he would have protected me. Now this is not reading the Mahabharata. This is reading into the Mahabharata.

It is we are having our own ideas and reading into the Mahabharata. So, to some extent, such inferences might seem reasonable. But if they are from the progression and the characterization, if they are not actually tenable, then it's best not to make such inferences.

We can talk more one to one afterwards if required. So, thank you very much.