The below matter is combination of thoughts of author(I)only

1% but my friend s from Ramayana community 99%(like

,mallikarjun and Sabarish )). Each & every quality described
above is tested under several conditions & found to be
consistent. Still for any discrepancy the author is fully
responsible. I am thankful to them for guiding me to
understand Ramayana and I have taken their post in Ramayana
community violating copyright act.May god bless such souls

Kishkindha episode written by Valmiki

Sugreeva challenged vali to a combat for the second time. Before going Tara, wife of
Vali stopped him and said

Think before you go. Theres soemthing fishy when Sugreeva came for the second
time as he can not withstand you once. I have enquired that Rama, son of
Dasharatha came and made friends with Sugreeva. Rama is the upholder of
Dharma. Still nothing happened that could not be rectified. Bring Sugreeva back
and give him his wife. He still has respect for you. And you cannot find a better
relative than Sugreeva in the whole world. When Tara told Vali of her knowledge of
Rama helping Sugreev, Vali said that Rama is a Dharmatma and he would not do
anything that is wrong. Then Tara asks Vali "How much Dharma do you know, to
be able to predict Rama's action? You only know Dharma's "sthoola roopa" but
Rama understand's Dharma's "sookshma swaroopa" so we can never understand
how he will apply that Dharma.

But vali refuses to do so and goes to fight sugreeva. As vali is aware of Rama, he
starts fighting with sugreeva as a moving top so that even if somebody hits from
hideout, he has a chance to escape. The strength of Vali's body is such that an arrow
which can pierce through seven "sAla" trees in one hit can only pierce vali's body.
But Rama released his arrow and hit Vali.

Though vali fell, his brilliance did not diminish even a bit. Rama then ran to vAli
with the respect of approaching a brave person. Indra's necklace gave more
brilliance to vali(this was the reference given by valmiki to Indra's necklace). Here
vali asks rAma the following questions.

1) You are such a good looking prince. You kill me while

I am in a dual combat not facing you.
2) They say Rama is a virtuous, all knowing, and acts
timely. Kshatriyas like you are supposed to keep the
dharma. You have read vedas and know what is true and
what is not. I thought you will not attempt to kill me
while I am in a combat with Sugreeva.
3) I have not known that you will become the bearer of
unrighteousness and your soul is put to death.
4) I am not guilty as I have never committed any sin in
your land, nor against you. what made you hit me when I
am in a combat with other?
5) You are born in Raghu family which is well known for
its reputation in keeping Dharma. And you being the son
of such high souled Dasharatha, how could you do such
a deed?
. 6) We are forest dwellers. And you are nAgarik. how
could you resot to such unethical deed?
7) People do misdeeds for territory, gold etc. What will
you gain in killing me?
8) I am killed by an elephant called Rama that snapped
off its girdle-cord called tradition, that infringed the
conventions of righteous people, and that discarded the
goad called virtue
9) Had you been in combat with me by now you would
have seen the death.
10) If you had did this misdeed that Sugreeva will help you in searching seetha, I
could have captured rAvana and brought him to you
For detail you can read this from original site
Now let go how Lord Rama replied all his queries
For these questions Rama answers Vali in the most
convincing way. The answers are
1) You criticize me with all these allegations. How
childish are you in doing so.
2) Dharma, Artha, kama, Samaya, Loka all these
matter when taking the right decision. You have no
knowledge of any of the above How do you criticize
me?
3) You are a monkey by nature. You have kept other
monkeys like you around and think whatever you do
is right. If you dont know dharma, go the elders, read
scriptures. Then you will knwo what dharma is.
4) The earth with all the mountains, forests is all
under the jurisdiction of the Raghus. And as a person
born in that dynasty its my duty to keep the dharma
in this land. And we have to punish those who do a
wrong deed.
5) A younger brother, a desciple, and son all have the
same position.
6) Realise this reason by which I have eliminated you.
you misbehaved with your brother's wife, forsaking
the perpetual tradition
7) Doing a misdeed with a daughter, sister or wife of
the younger brother, is subject to death punishment
as told by scriptures
8) My association with Sugreeva is as good as that
with Lakshmana, if I take your help to get back
seetha, who will get back Sugreeva's wife?
9) Sinners who are punished by kings attain heaven,
their sin being washed off. Else the king will have to
bear the punishment of such sin. Similar punishment
was given by my ancestor Mandhaata before.
10) You are a monkey by birth. Kshatriyas hunt
animals by keeping abits, traps etc. There is no
mistake in killing an amimal like you from hideout.
Hunting is no face to face event.
11) I have killed you to uphold my family's tradition in
protecting Dharma. Then Vali himself accepted Rama
has done no sin. We should accept one thing.

"rAmO vigrahavAn dharmah"

My Rama has done nothing wrong. My knowledge

might not be sufficient to judege what he has done.
But Rama has done nothing wrong.

Thus valmiki clears everything in his Ramayana

showing
I would have to explain why Lord Rama didn’t fought
Vali in the Duel before doing that we have to see a
veda known as Dhanur veda

These are the ancillary subjects of Vedas called anga part and upa anga sub-part.
The main parts of Veda-s are siksha ritual rigor vyakarana grammar chandas
prosody jyotish astrology nirukta recital rules kalpa procedure rules. This apart, the
dhanur veda science of archery, itself is treated as 'an exclusive Veda taught to
warriors...' The danur Veda is not to be construed as simple bow and arrow and
'shooting the target' education. It is a 'scripture on missiles' that existed in those
ages.
Down the memory lane, O. A.Vijayan, the eminent Indian journalist has reflected in
The Illustrated Weekly of India, that the Soviet scholar Dr. A. A. Gorbovsky said in
his article with heading Ancient India may have had N-arms , in the Statesman,
with dateline Moscow, Sept. 8, 1986. Among other things, the scientist observes by
the stanzas that describe the disaster caused by such astra-s, now loosely termed as a
well crafted bow and sky rocketing arrows, as below:

'A blazing shaft which possessed all the effulgence of smokeless fire was let off... all
directions were enveloped by darkness... the very elements seemed to be perturbed...
the sun seemed to turn... the universe, scorched with heat, seemed to be in fever...
the survivors lost their hair and nails... for years the sun and sky remained
shrouded with clouds...'

Thus the narration goes on. This is the account of Brahma astra, as in Maha
Bharata, the other Epic of India. Thus the Dhanur Veda may be taken as the canon
of missile sciences, which fortunately has not been handed over to the successive
generations, lest everything would have been annihilated by now. In Ramayana too,
which is much earlier to Mahabharata, there are elaborate accounts of such astra-s
in the coming chapters. Sage Vishvamitra, who is well-versed in warfare, gives
many such weapons to Rama.

The Rules of combat were quite rigid…..Lemme write kinda rule

1.A mace fighter will fight a mace fighter, maharathi with maharathi……and……
2)Divine weapon should not be used to against those who are not aware about the
use of divine weapons 3)Divine weapon cant be used against those who are
uncivilized mental and inferior warrior 4)weapons must nt be used for people who
have no one in his clan except imergency……There are many rules which I FAIL
TO RECALLL…..
W hy lor d didn’t fought lor d VALI

1)There is a reason for this. Rama is a kshatriya. Rama

knows dhanur veda. You might already know that
dhanur vidya is not like the bow and arrow skills of
robinhood. They have astra knowledge etc. But vali is
a vanara. And had no knowledge of Dhanur veda
Rules of a combat were quite rigid. One has to
specify his gothra and varna before he fights his
opponent. Vali is in no way suitable for such fight.
Rama has the responsibility of restoring sugreeva's
wife to him. So he has to order Vali. Vali is already
headstrong that he wont listen to anybody. So
according to kirata nyaya he had to set up a trap for
vali and kill him.

2)Furthermore, there is some explaination when lord

rama asks agasthya muni, Hanumaan is as strong as
me. why did he not kill vali. why did he wait for me to
come and kill him? (as hanuman is also a vanara)
Agasthya muni answers that, yes hanuman was
capable of kiling vali but because of the curse he had
in his childhood, unless someone reminds him of his
energy he doesnt know that. And Jambavaan
reminded him while they were at the ocean to search
seetha. The next question is why did Jambavan
reminded him then and why not before? The answer
is that the courage of hanuman is only to be used for
Rama's purpose and for nobody else.Vali could have
misused hanuman power
To conquer both Ravana and indra and both Indra and
Ravana were far better people than vali and valiant.
ou think Shri Ram would have thought that Vali was
below his level as a warrior??.. I can not take this
argument He fought Ravana only with the Vanarsena.
He would not have thought about Vali's Gotra and
varna..For that matter, Ravana was a Danav..Sri Ram
is for everyone my friend..

There is a lot of logic to be understood in Ramayana

and every deed Rama did. I had my points very lucid.
First let me get this straight. When talking about
varna vyavastha a brahmin is noway greater than a
kshatriya or a vaisya and vice versa. So Rama
looking down at Vali is not the case. It was not apt for
Rama to fight Vali in a duel or combat as the rules
were very rigid for combat.Vali was not knowing
Dhanur veda and Ravena spared him because
Ravena could have killed him using’ any divine
weapon……..
When Rama fought Ravana, Ravana also knew dhanurveda and
fought with him. The nature of 'Maryada' (boundary) is shown by
Rama throughout the epic. For example he doesnt talk to
Hanuman when Hanuman arrives for the first time in front of him
as a brahmin, but asks lakshmana to talk with hanuman. Again
Rama is following his imperial protocol. As an emperor he does not enter into any
direct conversation with envoys or ambassadors. Later Rama asks Lakshmana to
conduct the dialogue with Hanuma. This is said to have another reason. Because
Lakshmana is another wordsmith, equalling Hanuma by way of his knowledge in
scriptures, Rama assigns that duty to Lakshmana. Now Rama's analysis of this
envoy's knowledge, thereby gauging his master's virtuousness, is made know to
Lakshmana in the following verses.

Further the cause that half the power of the opponent is captured
by Vali because of the necklace given by Indra is just a myth.
Valmiki Ramayana has only mention of the necklace that Vali
was shining brightly with that ornament. If that was the reason
rama would have said so. 3)Here is none to say that Vali is
'unkillable...' or 'not to be killed...' But to every one a doubt occurs as
to why Rama did not come face to face with and killed him? Why hit him
from a remote place? For these doubts, the above said arguments may
not suffice or satisfactory, either to Vali or to us, the readers.
Dharmaakuutam, the only commentary on Ramayana insofar as dharma is
concerned explains that for us.

When it is said by Rama that 'today only I will kill Vali...'

then it may be countered by saying, 'then why killing him
from distance, why not confront him?' I HAD ALREADY
CLEARED but If Rama comes to fore, fear may grip Vali,
then he may take Ruma, Sugreeva's wife, and to insult,
Sugreeva further, Vali may go to a distant place with
her. Or, he may seek shelter with Ravana. Or, he may
even take refuge in Rama like Sugreeva. Or, on seeing
Sugreeva with enough support, he may summon all his
Vanara army to fight with Sugreeva and his supporters.
Then it will prolong for a time. Then the promise of Rama
made to Sugreeva to accord his wife and his kingdom by
killing Vali, also prolongs. Justice delayed is denied.
Otherwise, if Vali surrenders to Rama, as the killing of a
refugee is not a merited act, Rama has to pardon Vali.
Whether Vali takes refuse or not, killing Vali on that day
itself, and establishing Sugreeva in Kishkindha are the
promises made by Rama, at the time of befriending
Sugreeva. The word given is to be kept up. So Rama did
it and there is no unrighteous deed done by Rama. And
Vali also accepts this in the coming stanzas
. All our knowledge on the parallel facts of the
itihasas are based on the puranas, upanishads etc.
The eighteen puranas are accepted to be authentic by
elders out of many we know. Neither of them mention
this story that Vali has the boon to capture half the
capacity of his opponent.

There is not even a hint of such boon if you see

Ramayana. Rama assures Sugreeva that he will kill
Vali and save Sugreeva. Sugreeva mentions Vali's
strength. To demonstrate he is capable of killing Vali
Rama shoots an arrow through seven Sala trees in a
row and throws the skeleton of Dundubhi a long
distance with his toe. After killing Vali when Vali
questioned him about why Rama killed him from
behind Rama told him everything but did not mention
about Vali's boon at all.

Even demons like Maaricha and Akampana could see

Rama as an embodiment of Dharma ("Raamo
vigrahavan Dharmah, Saadhu Satya Parakrama").

When Tara told Vali of her knowledge of Rama

helping Sugreev, Vali said that Rama is a Dharmatma
and he would not do anything that is wrong. Then
Tara asks Vali "How much Dharma do you know, to be
able to predict Rama's action? You only know
Dharma's "sthoola roopa" but Rama understand's
Dharma's "sookshma swaroopa" so we can never
understand how he will apply that Dharma.

So the killing of Vali and the manner of killing boils

down to punishing an animal of the jungle that had
 gone wayward in its ways, breaking the balance of
nature. We who repeatedly keep voting corrupt and
dishonest people to power and can go blind to
injustices in front of our very eyes to our own people
can never know the real meaning of "Mr. Clean".

Now Vali could not have brought Sita Back Noway he could have defeated Indrajit
And Atikaay
Let me come out of Valmiki Ramyana my personal opinion
Dushtah nigraha sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind
and wonders “You have to do something, This is very
important ………………it means You have to do
something and you did something else
Let us analyse the scenario step by step. When Bali was wounded by
Shree Ram’s arrow he asked Shree Ram before dying, he didn’t offend
Him in any way in His country or His town. He didn’t humiliate Him in
any way, he had been ‘innocent’ and that he had not done any
‘Apraada’ (offence) to Shree Ram …. Just by applying logic found in this
defence of Bali, shall we say that had he not offended Shree Ram, if
not in Shree Ram’s place, but in his own place (Bali’s territory) and
humiliated Shree Ram in some way, could Shree Ram had given him
the end in the way as it was ? In order to understand the nuances, let
us remind ourselves that there was no going back on killing Bali as far as Shree
Ram was concerned. The moment He went around the fire and pledged to
Sugreev that he would kill Bali, Bali’s fate was sealed. So the issue
was not why He killed. The question whether Bali committed any offence
or not as to attract a death sentence from Shree Ram is irrelevant
(based on the pledge that Shree Ram gave to Sugreev). But that he
was killed in a particular fashion alone gets connected with some cause
, probably an offence to Shree Ram. As until long Bali was not in any way connected
with Him, the offence
must have taken place later. Since the killing was in an indirect mode
, the offence must also have been in an indirect mode. If we proceed
with this line of reasoning, we get ample evidence to show that Bali
had indeed offended Shree Ram in an indirect way. He seemed to have
come into grasp of this indirect offence gradually as he continued to
talk to Shree Ram. One can see a palpable shift in Bali’s tone from being
accusative to submissive thereby indicating that wisdom had dawned
on him slowly and lately. It starts with Bali’s talks on Raj-Dharma. As he
continued to speak of Raj-Dharma, Shree Ram’s commitment to ‘Dushtah
nigraha sishta paripaalanam’ sinks in his mind and wonders “You have to
do something, but You have done some other thing”. What is that some
thing and some other thing is again spelt by Bali himself. He thinks that because of
his not rising to the occasion, Shree Ram had
killed him unseen. He expresses this in his talk(that continues from the
above mentioned one).“ It is perfectly legitimate for Sugreev to aspire
for the throne after me. It is perfectly legitimate for him to kill me to
attain the throne. But Shree Ram, it is not legitimate on Your part to
hit me when I am fighting with another”, says Bali. “If you think it is
legitimate, tell me how”, says Bali before he collapses.
So the issue now centres around whether Shree Ram considered the
non-rising to the occasion of Bali as an offence. The answer is yes,
going by what Shree Ram says in the beginning and at the end of
his defence. Shree Ram replies that He had been perfectly Dharmic
in what He had done, by this does He points out to Bali that he had
failed to carry out the Dharma in his (Bali’s) land? Bali spoke of all
Raj-Dharma that included protecting the Dharma in one’s land and
punishing the offenders. Did he follow that Raj-Dharma? He knew that
Sita Ji had been abducted. He knew the one who had abducted her
was once defeated by him. He was more valiant than the abductor
and could have easily overpowered him if he had made an attempt.
Further the abduction was carried out in a land that belonged to him
and Sita Ji was carried across his kingdom. Sugreev had seen the
abduction.so Hanuman jee and BALI
since He was carrying the curse of Rishi Angvahak & was not aware of
His true potentials & probably was not in a position to challenge Ravan
couldn’t do much to help. But Bali could have stopped it, he in his capacity
as a king is supposed to stop crimes in his land and punish the offenders.
Bali had known that Sita Ji had been abducted and as a king must have
been well aware that she had been carried right across his land. But he
didn’t do anything about it, despite being powerful enough to stop it or
restore her. For whose command did Bali wait to execute Raj-Dharma ?
Or for that matter for whose command the bird, Jatayu waited to take
on Ravan? The sense of duty that a pakshi (bird) had, a monkey king didn’t
have.
The abduction of a married woman and the consequence of the same
are of serious dimensions for humans and no need to say that this applies
to the divine couple. That Bali had failed to contribute his might in stopping
it happen or restoring Sita Ji by his own volition seems to be the factor
being reminded by Shree Ram.
Let us have few more analysis

Vali's question 'I would have brought back Maithili in one day...' is given an
answer. Bringing Maithili from the captivity of Ravana would have averted Vali's
death - so Vali thought. But who will bring Ruma, wife of Sugreeva, and give her
back to Sugreeva? Vali does not consider this, and in this alone Vali's transgression
is said to have been proved. Thus any truce between Vali and Rama is an impossible
and improbable proposition.
What all Rama wanted is the 'search for Seetha...' not bring her to his fore.
Elimination of Ravana is to be done by Rama alone, for which Seetha is to be
located first. If a truce is struck between Vali and Rama, Vali straightway goes to
Ravana and asks for Seetha. If Ravana yields Seetha there is no cause left for his
elimination. Ravana for sure refuses to yield her. Then a combat ensues between
Ravana and Vali. But Vali can combat one-to-one in a duel and he may not
encounter a magical war of Indrajit . Then all the demons will combine to eliminate
Vali, thus the epic concludes there haphazardly. Other way round, if Vali seeks help
of Ravana and his military to combat Rama, Vali's forces and Ravana's forces will
come down on a handful warriors like Rama, Sugreeva Hanuma, and Jambavanta
et al. Then the whole of monkey force will be with Vali, and these few warriors will
be routed down mercilessly. Above all, Rama has promised Sugreeva to eliminate
Vali, the abuser of tradition, and Rama becomes blameworthy if he fails in his
word. Hence the simplest formula 'enemy's friend is my enemy
too...' works well and Rama followed that only.

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.' Now people can take how badly and carelessly
Griffith was expected to translate these epics

Gaurav asked me to explain Dhanur veda but we don’t

have Knowledge of dhanur veda after burning of nalanda
university by muslim ruler and some information of
Dhanur veda which we have in Ramayana or mahabharat
is already given.If we would had Dhanur Veda …..we
would had nuke missile much before Russia.

The above matter is combination of thoughts of author(I)only

1% but my friend s from Ramayana community 99%(like
,mallikarjun and Sabarish )). Each & every quality described
above is tested under several conditions & found to be
consistent. Still for any discrepancy the author is fully
responsible.