‘Enemy of House’: Vibhishan’s Case Study

Anyone who knows anything about Ramayana surely knows about Vibhishan (IAST: Vibhīṣaṇa). He was Ravana’s younger brother and a sibling of  Kumbhakarna. But, while Kumbhakarna supported Ravana in his battle against Rama, Vibhishan broke his ties with Ravana and helped Prabhu Rama instead. But this act of Vibhishan earned him a bad name in popular culture. In Bengali we say ‘ঘরের শত্রু বিভীষণ’ (ghorer shatru Vibhishan) which literally translates as ‘Vibhishan—an enemy of house’. If I’m not wrong, in Hindi they say ‘घर भेदी विभीषण’. But is this accusation justified? Are we right in our grounds to call Vibhishan like this? 

This question regarding Vibhishan is a key to understanding dharma. And we also see parallels in Mahabharata: in the story of Surya-putra Karna. What Vibhishan didn’t do, Karna did. Both Vibhishan and Karna were righteous in their hearts, both knew what is dharma and what is adharma, but Karna stood by adharma, and Vibhishan chose dharma. And eventually, do you see the results? 

Karna’s chariot wheel sinks into earth, he forgets his vidya, and Arjun kills him in the battlefield. His whole life turns into a failure. On the other hand, Vibhishan eventually becomes Lankesh—King of Lanka. Lord Rama himself crowned him. 

So, what can we learn from these stories? What is dharma—essentially this is the wisdom that we gain. 

Kumbhakarna and Karna did the same thing—they stood with adharma. Kumbhakarna did so out of brotherly love and duty, Karna out of loyalty; but blind loyalty. While we glorify duty and loyalty—but when they serve injustice, wrong ideals and wrong models, they become crimes. Indeed these are social ideals, but one must practice any ideal with discernment, no? Otherwise they are just misplaced ideals. What good is that? 

Now, Vibhishan knew what was right. He knew that Ravan had committed a terrible crime, and although nobody had the guts to confront Ravana, Vibhishan clearly warned Ravana against his misdeeds. Ravana humiliated him. But, Vibhishan also realized that Rama was not an ordinary mortal; there was something about Rama that convinced Vibhishan that Rama is an ideal upholder of dharma—a true embodiment. That’s why he took Rama’s shelter, not out of greed for the throne or resentment against Ravana because he humiliated him. He had the eyes to see on which side dharma is—that is, he had discernment. This is even more striking because, after all, he was a rakshas; but he knew dharma. In fact, he was a great Vishnu bhakt. He would everyday do his sandhya-vandana and chant Vishnu’s names. In fact, that’s how Hanuman, when he went to Lanka in search of Mata Sita, met Vibhishan—after hearing Vishnu-nam coming from a house. It seemed strange to Hanuman that someone was chanting Vishnu’s names in Ravana’s Lanka! That’s how they met.

So, as far as the accusation is concerned—it’s grounded in agyan. If, let’s suppose, Vibhishan helped Ravana, would that earn him greater merit? Then there would remain no difference between him and Kumbhakarna, between him and Ravana. Any sane man, who knows what is right and wrong, why would choose the wrong path? If not in pressure…

That’s the slight difference between Vibhishan and Kumbhakarna, between him and Karna. Karna knew what is dharma, but he never objected Duryodhana’s actions, he remained silent. For him loyalty became the highest dharma. But, unfortunately, his loyalty was misplaced. And instead of rising in dharma, he literally fell to the ground, and he paid the price with his life. 

To sum it all up, one who keeps dharma above everything else is ultimately blessed; and who does harm to dharma, ultimately perishes. That’s the great lesson we learn from these characters. 

Somehow I feel, even Ravana knew that he did adharma, but it was his unrestrained mind—his unstoppable pride and desire to bhoga—that ultimately led him to his downfall. He had great power, enough to conquer the three worlds, but he couldn’t conquer his desires. And in the dharmik way of looking at it, this is the greatest failure for a human being—to not be able to rise above one’s own fears and desires, which popular mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik refers to as bhay (भय) and bhuk (भुक्). A liberated being is one who has transcended all his fears and desires. I would go to the extent to say that these two words are the summation of all human teachings—understand these and you’ll be free. 

—

Thank you.

Feature Image Credit: https://hi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A3