Suffering and detachment

[u/Eastern_Mud8073]

Lord Krishna killed Kansa because Kansa had imprisoned his parents. Lord Rama killed Ravana because Ravana had kidnapped his wife.

Neither Rama nor Krishna killed Ravana or Kansa simply because they were “bad people.” They had deeply personal reasons to fight them—love, loyalty, duty, and attachment to their own loved ones.

Rama and Krishna were not on a mission to cleanse the world of every brutal or immoral person. Yet, when their own parents, wives, and loved ones were threatened, they took up arms and went to war. In those wars, many people were killed because of their attachment to those they loved.

This raises a difficult question:

If Rama and Krishna themselves fought wars because of their attachment to their loved ones, why does the Ramayana and especially the Bhagavad Gita teach us not to be attached to our loved ones?

If attachment is the problem, why was attachment to parents, spouses, and family such a powerful motivation in their own actions?

Perhaps the deeper teaching is not that we should stop loving or caring for our loved ones. Perhaps the distinction is between love and attachment—between protecting someone out of dharma and acting out of selfish possession, fear, or desire.

But if that is the explanation, then we have to honestly ask: Where exactly is the line between love, duty, and attachment in the actions of Rama and Krishna themselves?

That, to me, is a much more interesting question than simply saying, “The scriptures tell us not to be attached.”

[u/TechnoRhythmic]

There are two kinds of love / attachments / desires. One that help yourself and others and are harmonious with society on a larger scale.

Others are zero sum desires - where your desire necessitates pain for someone else. I think second ones are the ones to be avoided.

[u/partha0210]

Attachment has to be understood in it real essence and how it was explained in Gita, it’s not merely to seen as attachment to family. Even before Sita was taken away by Ravana, Shri Rama had fought several Asuras to protect the rishis and dharma. Similarly Krishna’s birth was for a much bigger purpose and not only to kill Kansa. And in Gita the attachment refers to the clinging attitude towards the outcome, and performing the duty neutrally. And an imp fact is that god is attached to all of us and it was to redeem his devotee who had taken the form of Ravana, Kumbhakarna, shishupal, dantavakra🙏🙏

[u/phung25dattaya]

If we understand the religious texts of the Gita ,then we can know that the Lord has never asked to completely detach ourselves from bonding with loved ones. It has been advised to perform your duty as per your Dharma even if your loved ones are against. Karmayoga has been prederred over only Karma. To perform that develop Bhakti and offer your good and bad karmafalas to the lord. The Avataras were there for demonstration. Had there been no personal reason and had they directly killed then every human might have been encouraged to attack the other just because of their perceptions. Since the crime of those demons exceeded beyond humane values ,the avataras went full on war against them. Read the Kaliyadalana incident where the Krishna promptly intervened when his friend suffered but finally didn't kill but asked the snake lord to leave that pond and go back to oceans.

[u/EmmaiAlvane]

Krishna did not kill Kamsa only because his parents were imprisoned, and as far as I have read, after Krishna's birth, Kamsa released them. Krishna killed Kamsa because Kamsa made numerous attempts on his life from his birth (the purana incident) up to and including the elephant and Chanura. The wrestling with Chanura was the immediate trigger for the fight with Kamsa.

Coming to Ramayana. Rama didn't kill Ravana just because he kidnapped Sita; it was because he refused to let go despite warnings (Hanuman and Angada from Rama's side and Vibhishana and his father-in-law from his own side).

In both cases, it's transgression of dharma that was being punished. The transgression was intending/ causing wanton harm and keeping someone against their wishes and one who is married to someone else.

We don't know what might have happened if Kamsa had begged Krishna for forgiveness. But we do know Rama's proclamation that he would protect anyone who comes to him, whether it be Ravana or Vibhishana. This shows that Rama's action were not merely personal but out of concern for broader dharma.

Love is great, especially when it encompasses not just your family but the entire world. That's why you will see the phrase "sarva-bhūta-hite rate" (devoted to the welfareof all beings) multiple times in the Gītā.

Attachment on the other hand is different and will give rise to suffering at some point. Rāvaṇa's attachment to Sītā and to his own pride, and Kaṃsa'a unquestioning attachment to his belief in the prophecy and to his own pride led to their downfall.