Who is Hanuman?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This thread is in GD section for a reason.
I am not INSULTING any GOD here. If your sentiments are hurt please do not read this thread.

Vānara refers to a group of people living in forests in the Hindu epic the Ramayana and its various versions. In the Ramayana, the Vanaras help Rama defeat Ravana.

There are three main theories about the etymology of the word "Vanara":

• It derives from the word vana ("forest"), and nara ("man"), means "belonging to the forest" or "forest-dwelling".
• It derives from the words vana ("forest"), and nara ("man"), thus meaning "forest man.
• It derives from the words vav and nara, meaning "is it a man?"or "perhaps he is man.

Although the word Vanara has come to mean "monkey" over the years and the Vanaras are depicted as monkeys in popular art, their exact identity is not clear.] Unlike other exotic creatures such as the rakshasas, the Vanaras do not have a precursor in the Vedic literature. The Ramayana presents them as humans with reference to their speech, clothing, habitations, funerals, weddings, consecrations, etc. It also describes their monkey-like characteristics such as their leaping, hair, fur, and tail.

According to one theory, the Vanaras are strictly mystical creatures. This is based on their supernatural abilities, as well as descriptions of Brahma commanding other deities to either bear Vanara's offspring or incarnate as Vanaras to help Rama in his mission. The Jain re-tellings of Ramayana describe them as a clan of the supernatural beings called the Vidyadharas; the flag of this clan bears monkeys as emblems.

G. Ramdas, based on Ravana's reference to the Vanaras' tail as an ornament, infers that the "tail" was actually an appendage in the dress worn by the men of the Savara tribe. (The female Vanaras are not described as having a tail. According to this theory, the non-human characteristics of the Vanaras may be considered artistic imagination. In Sri Lanka, the word "Vanara" has been used to describe the Nittaewos mentioned in the Vedda legends.

​

Vanara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So maybe we wrong to paint Hanuman as a Monkey.

 

[prasad1]

Gods, it is said, can assume any shape or many shapes at one time. Our mythological Hanuman, monkey god of the epic Ramayan, conforms to this omniscience. A combination of the rhesus monkey, the langur and man, it cannot be said to belong to any single species.

I find this kind of synergy is common for portrayals of mythological characters which are usually portrayed as composite formalized mosaics of two or more beings. Their actual features are embellished or overlaid by ascribed attributes drawn from characters that are either similar or familiar. The traditional depiction of Hanuman is in keeping with this.

The question that strikes me concerning Hanuman is: why this mix-up from two simian species? Obviously, the most striking or appealing features from different species have been taken -- the highly arching tail of the langur, the pinkish face with the more pronounced and powerful muzzle of the Bandar and the stance of a human being; the features of only one species were inadequate to portray such a valiant character as Hanuman.

He seems to have the head and face of the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) because of the lack of a mane and crown tuft and a pink face. The similarity does not end here. Hanuman also has a prominent, prognathous (protruding or long-jawed) muzzle and hair along the side of the jaws like sideburns. These are in sharp contrast to langurs which are maned and darker, with flatter features.

Artists have evidently found it difficult to draw Hanuman. The upright stance of the monkey god is quite contrary to the natural horizontal stance of both the species from which it has drawn its characteristics. This also explains why the northern form of the langur's tail carriage has never been depicted.

It looks to me that the artists would have had an easier time, and could have done a better job, had they not been required to combine these three different strains. For example, in the typical monkey stance, the tail could have been easily drawn with an artistic flourish, looping either gracefully forward or backward.

Imagine translating the forward loop in the context of the upright human stance -- the appendage would have to be drawn arched over the head or shoulders and would dip awkwardly in front of the monkey god's face. This kind of illustration would look very odd and could be made aesthetically appealing only with great difficulty. The ancient artists, therefore, consciously or not, ignored the direction of the loop that, even if natural, might offend artistic sensibilities.

Hanuman: man, monkey or langur?

G U Kurup works with the Western Ghat regional station of the Zoological Survey of India in Calicut.

www.downtoearth.org.in

 

[prasad1]

There are a few different theories about the origin of the myth of the vanaras. Obviously there is the possibility that they were purely mythological. This is the simplest answer, and therefore probably the correct one. But, ignoring this for the sake of argument, there are a few feasible alternatives. The word vanara itself is derived from two Sanskrit words: vana (“forest”) and nara (“man”), therefore meaning forest-man or forest-dweller. This leads us to the conclusion that the vanaras were simply a race of men who lived in the forest. Perhaps the part about them being monkeys and having superhuman traits was simply a form of extreme artistic license. Notably, none of the female vanaras (of which there were few in the epic) were described as having tails.

Another possibility is that there was some other species of hominid living on the Indian peninsula thousands of years ago. It is possible that our ancestors encountered, for instance, the Neanderthal species. Neanderthals had similar skeletal structure as humans which makes them look alike, but there were some differences such as the widened brow and flattened nose. Interestingly enough, these are also features that chimpanzees have. Perhaps we encountered another hominid species thousands of years ago and preserved our experience with oral retellings, which have a tendency to get less and less accurate over time.



As I said earlier, in all likelihood the vanaras were but a myth. But there is some evidence to say that they did exist; either as a tribe of humans or some other species of hominid.

Were the Vanaras Real? – Varun's Rcl Blog

 

[prasad1]

Hanuman Ji is one of the eminent personalities mentioned in Ramayana. He is represented with a face like monkey and also with a tail. Naturally this doubt will come into mind of an inquisitor.

Did Hanuman Ji really resembled a monkey?

This question is important as many people make mockery of Hanuman Ji by addressing him as ape god.

I started researching about Veer Hanuman in Valmiki Ramayana . I was surprised to learn about the reality. I am putting forward my analysis for the readers.

Hanuman ji belonged to Vanara community. The famous meaning of the word Vanara is Monkey but the literal meaning is one who dwells in the forest and lives on that food that grows in a forest. So, instead of considering him as a monkey why cannot we consider him as a forest dweller? It seems that the word Vanara is misinterpreted. We can also understand this logic with the help of another example. Another name of mountain is Giri and the persons living on the mountain are called as Girijan. So, if Girijan can be mountain dwellers than why cannot Vanara be forest dwellers? Thus, Hanuman ji was Human not a monkey living in forest.

Apart from Hanuman ji Sugariv, Bali all others are portrayed as monkey with a tail. While their wives are portrayed as common women without any tail and monkey like facial appearance. Isn’t it strange that all males of Vanara community resembles monkey while all females resemble Human being. We do not find any species in the whole world with such difference between males and females of same species. So, depicting Hanuman as monkey seems to be a mere imagination of an artist. This, Hanuman ji was a Human not a monkey.

After meeting Hanuman on Rishimukh mountain in Kishkindha Kand of Ramayana Hanuman is depicted by Shri Rama to Lakshmana.

न अन् ऋग्वेद विनीतस्य न अ यजुर्वेद धारिणः |
न अ-साम वेद विदुषः शक्यम् एवम् विभाषितुम् || 4/3/28

Rama says that the person with whom i just talked was well trained in the RigVeda , have enormous power to remember Yajurveda, scholarly knowledge of Samaveda. This type of impressive and heart touching talk is impossible without a scholarly command on Vedic grammar and related texts. Thus, Shri Rama acknowledged that Hanuman ji was an enlightened scholar of the Vedas. Is it possible for any monkey to attain such scholarly treat? No. So, Hanuman ji was a Human being not a Monkey.

4. In Sundar Kand of Valmiki Ramayana When Hanuman saw Sita in Ashok Vatika. He wanted to converse with Sita. But he was thoughtful.

He says

यदि वाचं प्रदास्यामि द्विजातिरिव संकृताम् रावणं मन्यमाना माम सीता भीता भविष्यति सेमयालोक्य मे रूपम जानकी भाषितं तथा रक्षोमिस्त्रासिता पूर्वं भूयस्त्रासं गमिष्यति ततो जातपरित्रासा शब्दम कुर्यान्मनिस्विनी जानाना माम विशालाक्षी रावणं काम रूपिणम् सुन्दर ३०/१८ , २०

“If I use Sanskrit language like a Brahmin, Sita will get frightened, thinking me as Ravana. Certainly, meaningful words of a human being are to be spoken by me. Otherwise, the virtuous Sita cannot be consoled. Looking at my figure and the language, Sita who was already frightened previously by the demons, will get frightened again." Sundar Kand 30/18–20

This reference proves that Hanuman ji was a scholar in Sanskrit. Is it possible for any monkey to attain such scholarly treat? No. So, Hanuman ji was a Human being not a Monkey.

5. The most famous doubt regarding Hanuman ji is how he flied over the ocean to reach Lanka. Some considers that he was all powerful and blessed with the powers to fly. Some says that he was possessing a flying machine.Some says he used his tail to fly.

The answer to this query is given by the few shaloks from kishkindha kanda.



मारुतस्य समो वेगे गरुडस्य समो जवे |
अयुतम् योजनानाम् तु गमिष्यामि इति मे मतिः || ४-६७-२७

In this shalok Angad praised Hanuman Ji of his powers and requested him to cross the ocean. Hanuman ji said "I who am a coequal of Air-god in speediness, and of Garuda in fleetness, can traverse (swim) ten-thousand yojanas at a stretch,that is my certitude. This shalok proves that Hanuman ji crossed the ocean by swimming. There is a Hindi proverb havā sē bātēṁ karanā (हवा से बातें करना) which means anyone who move with so great speed as he is flying in air. Hanuman ji with his power of celibacy crossed the ocean by swimming with high momentum. This lead to a confusion among readers that he was flying rather than swimming.

So, this proves that Hanuman ji was a human being with enormous stamina and strength. He was not a monkey but a human being.



There are several other instances which proves that the other characters of Ramayana like Sugriva, Angad, Jatau, Jamvahan etc were humans. By logic, true interpretations and evidences from authentic resources we can easily reach this conclusion that

Hanuman ji was not a monkey but a Human being.

Dr Vivek Arya

Hanuman ji was not a monkey but a Human being

Hanuman Ji is one of the eminent personalities mentioned in Ramayana. He is represented with a face like monkey and also with a tail. Nat...

vedictruth.blogspot.com