Sunday, 16 July 2017

Were the Vanaras of Ramayana Humans or Chimps?

In Valmiki Ramayana, the Vanaras are described as a tribe that assisted Rama in conquering the King of Lanka, Ravana. Due to TV shows where the Vanaras are depicted as a tribe of Chimps, many people take it for granted that the Vanaras were a tribe of Chimps. For this reason, it is nearly impossible for a modern Hindu to imagine a Ramayana without a loyal army of Chimps (i.e. Vanaras) aiding Rama. Hence, some Hindus date the Ramayana to dates as early as 2 million BCE, when there was no human civilization. I guess blind faith allows people to reject logic and reason and enter the world of fantasies where the only authentic source of information is that from their religious texts. No?
However, is this really the case? Were the Vanaras really Chimps, as commonly believed? This post will attempt to refute the claims that the Vanaras were a tribe of Chimps, and show that they were instead a tribe of Humans. To do so, the Southern Recession of Valmiki Ramayana will be analyzed.
I have come across many Hindus that have claimed that the Vanaras were Chimps, whereas others have said that due to longer tails, the Vanaras must have been the common ancestors of Humans and Chimps. I refuse to believe such claims, because it is not scientifically possible for the common ancestor of Humans and Chimps to have the kind of intelligence that was showed by the tribe of Vanaras in the Ramayana. Have we come across any tribe of Apes that branched out prior to Humans and Chimps that were able to converse in Human language or had a level of intelligence equal to that of a Human?

Image result for chimpanzee family tree

The answer is NO. Apes that branched out prior to Humans and Chimps (that is, earlier than 6 million years ago) such as Gorillas (~ 9 million years ago) and Orangutans (~16 million years ago) are not able to converse in Human language, nor do they have the level of intelligence that a Human has. Infact, research has found that Mature Apes have less intelligence than even 2.5 year old Human Toddlers[1]. The researchers found that 2.5 year old Human Toddlers perform better than the Apes in Social Cognition, which, as defined by Cognitive Scientist Joesph Call, is "thinking based on interaction with others".
In Ramayana, the Vanaras did not possess Social Cognition inferior to 2.5 year old Human Toddlers. For example, how can we forget the way Hanumana decided to enter Lanka at night so he does not get caught by the Rakshasas? How can we forget how Hanumana was overly conscious of Ravana and hid from him to prevent being caught prior to finding Seetha in Lanka? How can we forget the way Hanumana introduced himself to Seetha, by praising Rama and narrating Rama’s life story, so that Seetha does not react in a negative way upon first seeing him? Had Seetha reacted in a negative way by screaming, the Rakshasii protectors of Seetha would have captured Hanumana prior to Hanumana interacting properly with Seetha and taking her message to convey to Rama! Furthermore, how can we forget the decision of Hanumana to assess Ravana’s army strength by destroying the Ashoka Grove and provoking Ravana’s army to attack him? How can we forget the decision of the Vanaras to burn the palace of Ravana in the war, and thereby force the Rakshasa warriors to leave their defenses (in an attempt to save their lives from the fire) and fight the Vanaras in open, without the protection of their great palace? These decisions reflect intelligence greater than that of a 2.5 year old infant. For these reasons, calling the Vanara tribe as Chimps or a common Ape ancestor of Humans and Chimps is incorrect.
The intelligence of the aformentioned decisions of the Vanaras suggest that they were indeed Human. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the Vanaras could speak Human Language, which is not possible for Apes to speak as their vocal cords cannot close fully, thereby resulting in less control over the tongue and lower jaw[2]. This again suggests that the Vanaras were a tribe of Humans, not Apes.

The tribe name Vanara means "forest dwellers", and is derived from the two Sanskrit words Vana and Nara:
Vana = Forest
Nara = Men
Vana + Nara = Forest Men/Forest Dwellers
That being said, many Hindus might find an obvious problem with this conclusion, as the Vanaras in Ramayana were described as having a tail. How can Humans have tails? Well one thing to keep in mind is that only male Vanaras had tails, not the female Vanaras. This should get us thinking on what the “Vanara tail”, exclusive to males, could in fact mean or represent.
Most of the time in the epic, whenever tail is mentioned, the Sanskrit word used is लाङ्गूलम् (laaGguulam), which means both “penis” and “tail”. The translators often translate it as tail, and are unable to explain why the female Vanaras lack this “tail” (लाङ्गूलम्). However, if we translate it as penis, it makes thing alot less complicated. It is not possible for females to have this “male sex organ”, hence the females were not described in the epic as having this लाङ्गूलम्. At other times in the epic, the word पुच्छम् was used. Although it can be translated as “tail”, it also means “last or extreme end”. This second translation fits in with the translation of “penis” as the penis is an extremity of the human body.
This suggests that the so-called “tail” of the Vanaras was actually their penis. That is why female Vanaras didn't have this body part. Furthermore, in my reading of Valmiki Ramayana, I have almost never ever came across Vanaras wearing a lower body garment. For example, when Hanumana is crossing the sea to reach Lanka, Valmiki says:
स्फिग्देशेनाभिताम्रेण रराज स महाकपिः।।5.1.63।।
महता दारितेनेव गिरिर्गैरिकधातुना।
The great monkey with copperred buttocks (other parts being dark) looked splendid like a cleft mountain with a huge deposit of minerals shining red.
Sundara Kanda Section 1[3]
We can see in the verse above how the color of Hanumana’s buttocks are described. The poet would only be able to describe this if Hanumana’s bare buttocks were uncovered and visible to see. This suggests that Hanumana was not wearing a lower garment. That also explains why Valmiki was able to describe Hanumana’s penis (लाङ्गूलम्) in that section:
आनुपूर्व्येण वृत्तं च लाङ्गूलं लोमभिश्चितम्
उत्पतिष्यन् विचिक्षेप पक्षिराज इवोरगम्।।5.1.33।।
Like the king of birds Garuda would shake a serpent, he shook his penis covered with hair in order to take off.
Sundara Kanda Section 1[4]
The only time I remember when the Vanaras wore a lower garment was the fight between Vali and Sugriva, where the former lost his life.[5] In that fight, there is no mention of any penis (लाङ्गूलम्), most likely because the loincloth that the two Vanaras tied had covered that body part. Furthermore, if we assume लाङ्गूलम् to be a tail, then how is it possible to tie a loincloth tight enough for a hand to hand encounter, that holds such a long body part? Most likely, it would not even be possible to tie such a loincloth. However, even if we assume that it was successfully tied, we would notice that it would be too loose for one to be able to engage in a hand to hand encounter properly... This is another hint that the लाङ्गूलम् of the Vanaras was their penis, not their tail.
In Valmiki Ramayana, it is also mentioned that the लाङ्गूलम् (penis) of the Vanaras was very long. So then the question arises of how we can explain their long length. If we look at the narratives where their long length was emphasized, we would note one thing in common. Whenever the Vanaras performed a deed of great manly vigor and virility, and flaunted their लाङ्गूलम्, its length was emphasized by the poet. This suggests that the “long length” that was emphasized is a figure of speech, a hyperbole, employed by the poet to show the manly vigor, and virility (वीर्य) of the male Vanaras. In this case, the penis, the male sex organ is a representation of manliness, and a longer one can be taken to represent intensified manly vigor and virility. Ravana’s attempt to deform this लाङ्गूलम् (penis), of Hanumana was an attempt to suppress the manly vigor and virility Hanumana had earlier shown in terrorizing the Ashoka Grove and raping Rakshasa tribe females in Lanka.
This is not the first time hyperboles have been used in the epics. For example, the physical strength of warriors such as Bhima have been exaggerated to that of 10 000 elephants, in an attempt to show Bhima’s manly prowess.
One final point I would like to address is that sometimes the word “कपि” is used to describe Hanumana. कपि is a sanskrit word meaning monkey/ape. So this is an obvious discrepancy, right?
Wrong!
We have to keep in mind that the poet of Valmiki Ramayana was a person that lived his life in North India, and had most likely never seen the Southern region of India, including the Vanara tribes in Kishkindha. His description is therefore based on accounts by people that have visited those tribes. The description of the Vanara tribe would be of a tribe that roams naked, with unrepressed sexuality, and whose mannerisms differ greatly from the Aryan norm. For that reason, such a tribe would have been depicted as animal-like, prone to base instincts, hence the use of the word कपि (monkey/ape) to describe its members. That is also why these Aryan poets have also depicted other tribes with mannerisms different from the Aryan norm as "non-humans"... For example, the members of the Naga (meaning “naked”) tribe were depicted as snakes, and the members of the Rakshasa (meaning "protector") tribe were depicted as cannibalistic demons. This is simply propaganda by the Aryans, or to put it bluntly, “pure racism”. Rama grew up in this Aryan-centric society and hence inherited this racism. This explains his extreme aggression towards the Rakshasas and his sub-human treatment of them, as he showed in the case of Shurpanakha and Ayomukhi. It also explains why he justified the killing of Vali by likening him to an animal that a kshatriya has the right to hunt, both with and without deceit.
That being said, if we separate the racism of the poet, and the pre-concieved notions (of Vanaras being monkeys) of the translators of the epic, we would notice that the Vanaras were infact a tribe of forest dwellers, with different culture than the Aryan Culture. That explains how they “shamelessly” went around naked in public, something that the Aryans abhorred. They also had a matriarchal system of inheritance, which was quite different than what was common up in the North.
Footnotes

82 comments:

  1. I dont understand the need of people to spread lies instead of truths. What is the point of the Brahmins making up so many lies about Ramayana.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DO YOU BELIVE THAT ALL DASAS INCLUDING TULSIDAS KALIDAS
    KABIR DASA WERE FAKE ACCORDING OUR BELOVED CAPT AJIT VADKAYIL

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2013/06/kalidasa-did-not-exist-jainism-is.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I don't believe that. Captain has not read Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsidas' Ramacharitamanas because he claims that Uttara Kanda where Rama abandons Seetha is in Ramacharitamanas. It is actually in Valmiki Ramayana, not Ramacharitamanas. Tulsidas ends the Ramayana with Rama returning to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana!

      Delete
  3. do you believe later works like Ramchari tmansasa by tulsidasa as fictional and fake?

    DID LAV AND KUSHA CHARECTER EXIST IN VALMIKI RAMAYANA ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Bala Kanda and Uttara Kanda are later interpolations into Valmiki Ramayana, Luva and Kusha (which are only mentioned in those two kandas) did not exist. The reason being that Rama was impotent and was unable to impregnate his wife. Rama had around 25 years of married life (with sex) but was unable to impregnate Seetha!

      Delete
  4. DO YOU BELIVE THAT LORD AYYAPPA TO BE 9TH AVATAR OF VISHNU AS PROPGATED BY FRAUD MALLU CAPT VADKAYIL?

    ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2012/05/ten-avatars-of-vishnu-capt-ajit.html

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/08/imhotep-patron-saint-of-freemasons-capt.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the Vedic era, when Ramayana was written, there was no concept of incarnation or birth/rebirth, so I would say no. Incarnations of Vishnu is a later puranic concept when Vishnu became a more prominent god.

      Delete
  5. PERSONAL QUESTION DO U BELIVE THAT CAPT AJIT VADKAYIL
    IS DEARRANGED LUNATIC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't consider his a lunatic... He has a large Hindutva bias though...

      Delete
  6. DO YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT ALL VEDAS AND PURANAS OTHER HINDU
    LITERATURE WERE POISONED BY ROTHSCHILD AS TOLD BY OUR BELOVED CAPT VADKAYIL?
    If Rothschild indeed created all the dieties, texts,scriptures, rituals not to mention sexy sculptures as per the captain claims and seamlessly inserted the same in our culture without our realization, then I say Rothshilds are even greater Vedic scholars than say Shankaracharya!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rothschild did not "poison" Hindu scriptures. I read somewhere on his blog that Vishnu Purana is a poison injected scripture by Rothschild. But if we look at Al Beruni's records of India, in 11th century CE (before Rothschilds had any inflence on India), Vishnu Purana is still mentioned in it and so are the concept of heaven/hell that captain rejects...

      As far as sex and sexuality is concerned, the epics are filled with it. He seems like a Hindutva bigot hell bent on desexualizing the epics...

      Delete
    2. SORRY CAPT BOTH HEAVEN AND HELL EXISTS IN SANATA DHARMA If U THINK U WILL BE SAVED BY THE WHIP OF KARMA
      EVEN AFTER SPREADING TONS OF BIGOTRY THROUGH UR BLOGS U WRONG lol...

      Delete
  7. hi milind
    why did have to make haunumans admiration to rama as gay love? why cant someone of same gender admire each others valor and bravery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Admiring the valor and bravery of another male does not hint towards gay love. That was not my basis of saying that there was gay love between Rama and Hanumana. Read this post below:

      http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.ca/2017/07/an-analysis-of-hanumanas-bhakti-for-rama.html

      In that post, Hanumana describes Rama's penis in much detail, describing the size, shape, and texture of it. Unless he had some sort of sensual relationship with Rama, I don't see why he would be able to describe it in such a fashion...

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Replies
    1. I don't see any evidence in Valmiki Ramayana for that. So my answer would be NO.

      Delete
  10. you have said Parshurama only appears in Ramayana in Bala Kanda what about the story where parashurama challenges rama to fight him he asks to break shiva dhanassu rama defeats him .in sita swyamvara time

    ReplyDelete
  11. you have previously mentioned that bala kanda and uttara kanda was later addition? why was it added later into Ramayana ? what was the purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To project Rama as a god, and avatar of Vishnu, and to demonize Ravana!

      Delete
  12. If both Duryodhana and Draupadi are Shiva’s creation; if both Duryodhana and Pandavas share family, why did Krishna oppose him? Why, even Vyasa, at times, seems partial against him? Why was Duryodhana’s downfall and death necessary for establishing Krishna-conceived Dharma-Raajya? Why couldn’t Krishna’s Dharma-Raajya include Duryodhana?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indrajit Bandyopadhyay gives a good explanation for this. I agree with him for the most part:

      http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=48563

      http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=48564

      http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=48565

      Delete
  13. Did Bhisma die in bed of arrows? On the tenth day of the war Arjuna killed Bhisma using Shikhandi as a shield, Bhisma would not shoot at Shikhandi, because he had been a woman! He himself revealed to the Pandavas the way of killing him. He had ‘Ichhamrityu’, so lived another six months on his bed of arrows waiting for ‘Uttarayana’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bhishma died on the very day he was loaded with arrows. At the end of Bhishma Parva (evening of day 10), Sanjaya says:

      "Sanjaya said,--'I am Sanjaya, O great king. I bow to thee, O bull of Bharata's race. Bhishma, the son of Santanu and the grandsire of the Bharatas, hath been slain. That foremost of all warriors, that grandsire of the Bharatas, hath been slain. That foremost of all warriors, that embodied energy of all bowmen, that grandsire of the Kurus lieth to-day on a bed of arrows. That Bhishma. O king, relying on whose energy thy son had been engaged in that match at dice, now lieth on the field of battle slain by Sikhandin.

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06013.htm

      Bhishma was likely slain by Shikhandin, not Arjuna. There are numerous cross references where other character mention Bhishma being slain by Shikhandin. I will create a separate post on this. And the reason Arjuna placed Sikhandin's chariot before him in battle was not to hide from Bhishma, but instead to protect Sikhandin from Bhishma so that Sikhandin would have been able to attack and kill Bhishma easily:

      Then Sikhandin, taking up a mighty weapon and protected by Kiritin, rushed impetuously towards Bhishma alone.

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06119.htm

      [Kiritin is another name of Arjuna]

      It is also a misconception that Bhishma never attacked Sikhandin. Below is a passage where it is mentioned that Bhishma attacked Sikhandin:

      Then the king of the Panchalas the valiant Dhrishtaketu, Bhimasena the son of Pandu, Dhrishtadyumna of Prishata's race, the twins (Nakula and Sahadeva), Chekitana, and the five Kaikaya brothers, and the mighty-armed Satyaki and Subhadra's son, and Ghatotkacha, and the (five) sons of Draupadi, and Sikhandin, and the valiant Kuntibhoja, and Susarman, and Virata, these and many other powerful warriors of the Pandava army, afflicted by the shafts of Bhishma, seemed to sink in an ocean of grief, Phalguni, however, rescued them all.

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06119.htm

      Delete
  14. was story of dhuyasntha and shakuntala a later interpolation added to Mahabharata story by kalidasa?

    According to the Mahābhārata, Dushyanta is the son of Ilina and Rathantara.[1] He was king of Hastinapur and ancestor of the Kuru dynasty. Dushyant met his wife Shakuntala while on an excursion from his kingdom at the hermitage of sage Kanva. Dushyanta and Sakuntala had a son named Bharata who went on to become Emperor Bharata.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I dont agree with the captain. He rejects that story in Mahabharatha for a less authentic Puranic story about Emperor Bharatha!

      Delete
  15. In bhagava gita shri Krishna mentions of Nishkam Karma yoga how can there be a conscious action without any underlying desire whatsoever? .the principal tenet of Karma yoga—seems to be paradoxical and unmeaning

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree. There must be some sort of desire for every single action or every single decision made. But if we read in context, his words make sense. He was trying to brainwash Arjuna into fighting a war Arjuna did not want to fight! He essentially told Arjuna to not worry about the consequences and just go and exterminate the Kuru army, without thinking of the pro's/con's of waging the war...

      Delete
  16. what is ur opnion on story of king bharata eldest son of rishabha and his fight with elder brother baahubali?

    ReplyDelete
  17. according to our scholar capt vadkayil kalidasa never existed all his works were ghost written by GERMAN POET JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE? what is ur opnion on this ?

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2013/06/kalidasa-did-not-exist-jainism-is.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree... Captain provides no basis for such claims...

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. How was Balarama stronger than Bhima. Balarama coudlnt even beat jarasandha.

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. milind are u saying that bhagavat gita was not meant for general masses .but it was revealed by Krishna in context of making arjuna to fight the war

      Delete
  20. do you think death of abhimanyu and ghatodkacha was tragic and deliberate at same time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Death of Abhimanyu was unplanned. But death of Gatotkacha was planned by Krishna, so that Parikshit (a descendant of the Yadavas) would get right on the throne instead of the eldest child of the Pandavas, Gatotkacha!

      Delete
  21. why don't u accept the fact that Rama and Krishna were avatara of Vishnu? is it because among ten avataras they appear to show lot of human character than god? what is ur take on other avataras like matsya kurma varaha naramasimha vamana parashurama etc as former have both human and animal form ? if Vishnu avatar did not exist then what is the purpose of these stories in purana?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mahabharatha and Ramayana are vedic texts. In the vedas, there is no concept of incarnation and rebirth... So, all references to incarnations in Mahabharatha and Ramayana have to be later additions to the epics... The purpose of Vishnus incarnations in the Puranas was to project him as a prominent god in the Puranic period. In the Vedic period, he was not at the level of more important gods like Indra... Only 4 independent hymns in the Rig Veda are dedicated to Vishnu...

      Delete
  22. u have been a harsh critic of Rama and Krishna but not Vishnu other avatars like parashurama etc . is it because they participated in political war?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there is not much about Parshurama in the epics, compared to Rama and Krishna, thats why my criticism for Parshurama is not as great. But we can still criticize Parshurama for exterminating the Kshatriyas on Earth due to the mistake of a single Kshatriya and also for killing his mother!

      Delete
  23. what is ur take on lesser important character like ashwathama drona jayadratha satyaki shalya shishupala
    jarasandha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you want to know specifically about them? They were all great warriors!

      Delete
  24. why is there less importance give to nakula and sahadev in Mahabharata ?
    I find very less stories regarding bravery and early life of these last pandavas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah that is true... I have heard that in some tribal versions of Mahabharatha, the twins are given their due, unlike in the mainstream versions of Mahabharatha.

      Delete
    2. Here Draupadi gives a good description of all of her husbands to Jayadratha (Nakula/Sahadeva included). You might like this:

      hat warrior at the top of whose flagstaff two handsome and sonorous tabours called Nanda and Upananda are constantly played upon,--he, O Sauvira chief, hath a correct knowledge of the morality of his own acts. Men that have attained success always walk in his train. With a complexion like that of pure gold, possessed of a prominent nose and large eyes, and endued with a slender make, that husband of mine is known among people by the name of Yudhishthira, the son of Dharma and the foremost of the Kuru race. That virtuous prince of men granteth life to even a foe that yields. Therefore, O fool, throwing down thy arms and joining thy hands, run to him for thy good, to seek his protection. And that other man whom thou seest with long arms and tall as the full-grown Sala tree, seated on his chariot, biting his lips, and contracting his forehead so as to bring the two eye-brows together, is he,--my husband Vrikodara! Steeds of the noblest breed, plump and strong, well-trained and endued with great might, draw the cars of that warrior! His achievements are superhuman. He is known, therefore, by the name of Bhima on earth. They that offend him are never suffered to live. He never forgetteth a foe. On some pretext or other he wrecketh his vengeance. Nor is he pacified even after he has wrecked a signal vengeance. And there, that foremost of bowmen, endued with intelligence and renown, with senses under complete control and reverence for the old--that brother and disciple of Yudhishthira--is my husband Dhananjaya! Virtue he never forsaketh, from lust or fear or anger! Nor doth he ever commit a deed that is cruel. Endued with the energy of fire and capable of withstanding every foe, that grinder of enemies is the son of Kunti. And that other youth, versed in every question of morality and profit, who ever dispelleth the fears of the affrighted, who is endued with high wisdom, who is considered as the handsomest person in the whole world and who is protected by all the sons of Pandu, being regarded by them as dearer to them than their own lives for his unflinching devotion to them, is my husband Nakula possessed of great prowess. Endued with high wisdom and having Sahadeva for his second, possessed of exceeding

      p. 526

      lightness of hand, he fighteth with the sword, making dexterous passes therewith. Thou, foolish man, shall witness today his performances on the field of battle, like unto those of Indra amid the ranks of Daityas! And that hero skilled in weapons and possessed of intelligence and wisdom, and intent on doing what is agreeable to the son of Dharma, that favourite and youngest born of the Pandavas, is my husband Sahadeva! Heroic, intelligent, wise and ever wrathful there is not another man equal unto him in intelligence or in eloquence amid assemblies of the wise. Dearer to Kunti than her own soul, he is always mindful of the duties of Kshatriyas, and would much sooner rush into fire or sacrifice his own life than say anything that is opposed to religion and morals.

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03268.htm

      Delete
  25. Replies
    1. Disrobed by Dushasana in the Kuru Sabha? NO.

      Delete
  26. was burning of khandava vana a ethnic cleansing of nagas and rakshas by Arjuna

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup! But it was likely done for a political purpose, to prevent the Naga tribe from attacking Indraprastha. It was necessary for Yuddhistira to expand his kingdom.

      Delete
  27. was parashurama responsible for rise of bhramanical cult in india?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is responsible to some extent. But the orthodoxy increased much much after his death as well, so he cannot be blamed entirely!

      Delete
  28. were ancient brahamins responsible for all the creating the Vishnu avatar story and adding later stories into puranas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! It probably happened in the post-Gupta Empire period!!!

      Delete
  29. if all the Vishnu stories were proven fake then How Can a Hindu Reconcile With the past? even in modern times people worship Bollywood heros . I find Vedic deities did not have any such attributes to them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what about the gods like laxmi narada hanuman etc
      these deities were created along Vishnu?


      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Yes, those were also later deities.

      Delete
  30. do you think modern hindus can accept Vedic deities and worship them like Vedic times?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. is there also need to rebuild all temples that exists today? and aslo bring back original history that happened in India

      Delete
    2. I don't think so... We just need to teach more about Vedic deities, so that more Vedic temples will be made in the future. It will not go well with devotees if the temples of Puranic gods are broken to create temples of Vedic dieties...

      Delete
  31. why is Dattatreya did become a main steam deity in hinduism?

    ReplyDelete
  32. what is you view on Aghora? according to our scholar capt vadkayil as usual he blames it as Rothschild creation
    ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2014/09/aghoris-corpse-eaters-of-india-capt.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He blames everything on Rothschilds... He even says Niyoga in Mahabharatha was added in by Rothschilds...

      Delete
  33. i find ur theory that sita pre planed her own kidnap theory little absurd .i probably say rama deliberately chose vanavasa
    used Sita as a decoy to lure Ravana and then capture ravanas kingdom makes much more sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Rama's behavior after the kidnap, it does not seem like he planned to get Seetha kidnapped. In fact, at one point in the epic, he says:

      पर स्पर्शात् तु वैदेह्या न दुःखतरम् अस्ति मे |
      पितुर् विनाशात् सौमित्रे स्व राज्य हरणात् तथा || ३-२-२१

      "To me, oh, Soumitri, the grief of others touching Seetha is more, than father's demise or grabbing away my kingdom... [3-2-21]

      Seetha was likely involved in her own kidnap, because when she sends Rama off after the deer, Valmiki says she was filled with cozenage:

      एवम् ब्रुवाणम् काकुत्स्थम् प्रतिवार्य शुचि स्मिता |
      उवाच सीता संहृष्टा चद्मना हृत चेतना || ३-४३-९

      While Lakshmana of Kakutstha-s is speaking thus, she who is self-satisfied as her heart is conjured by the cozenage, such a Seetha of a toothy smile deterred him and spoke. [3-43-9]

      Delete
  34. do you support vibhishanas ambition to become king of lanka?
    both sugreeva and vibihisana used shri ram help to usurp the kingdom from their brothers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes they both used Ravana's help to snatch the kingdom from their brothers. Had Vibhishana not helped Rama, Rama would not have won the war. He gave some inner secrets about Ravana and his army to Rama!

      Delete
  35. how do you say ravana was killed as result of deciet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Mahabharatha, Krishna tells Yuddhistira to use deceit to bring Duryodhana out of the ocean waters where he hid himself (on the 18th day of the war). He gives examples of fellow Vedic people doing the same to destroy Rakshasas, Danavas, etc... He mentions how Rama killed Ravana as an example, suggesting deceit was also used by Rama against Ravana:

      "'Vasudeva said, "With thy own powers of illusion, O Bharata, destroy this illusion of Duryodhana who is an adept in it! One conversant with illusion should be slain with illusion! This is the truth, O Yudhishthira! With acts and means and applying thy power of illusion to these waters, slay, O chief of the Bharatas, this Suyodhana, who is the very soul of illusion! With acts and means Indra himself slew the Daityas and the Danavas! Vali himself was bound by that high-souled one (Upendra), with the aid of many acts and means! The great Asura Hiranyaksha, as also that other one, Hiranyakasipu, was slain by the aid of many acts and means. Without doubt, O king, Vritra also was slain by the aid of acts! Similarly was the Rakshasa Ravana of Pulastya's race, with his relatives and followers, slain by Rama! Relying upon acts and contrivances, do thou also display thy powers! Those two ancient Daityas, Taraka and Viprachitti of great energy, were in ancient times, O king, slain by the aid of acts and means! Similarly, Vatapi and Ilwala, and Trisiras, O lord, and the Asuras Sunda and Upasunda, were all slain by the aid of means! Indra himself enjoys heaven by the aid of acts and means! Acts are very efficacious, O king, and nothing else so, O Yudhishthira! Daityas and Danavas and Rakshasas and kings had been slain by the aid of acts and means. Do thou take therefore, the help of act!"'

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09031.htm

      Delete
  36. what would have been the overall impact in Indian history if suppose RAVANA HAD DEFEATED RAMA ? due you think is it favorable outcome

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would have been bad for Vedic Culture, but overall, it would have been much better for India. Ravana was a more prosperous king, where even the commoners were rich people. He gave more rights and respect to his women as well, unlike Rama!

      Delete
  37. do you think most of Rakshasas were cannibals tribe ? hence necessary to eliminate them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being cannibals is no reason to eliminate anyone. Even today tribes have cannibalistic practices. As long as the practice is regulated (i.e. humans are not needlessly killed), a tribe can practice it if they wish. Rama never gives cannibalism as a reason to kill the Rakshasas. Instead, he kills the Rakshasas as they banned and disrupted the Rshis' Vedic animal sacrifices...

      Delete
    2. By the way, according to Kakawin Ramayana (Indonesian version), Rama served blood in Ayodhya during the feast when he was consecrated as king...

      Delete
  38. do you think The Shaivite customs which Islam mirrors in many respects is lunar.? DOES LUNAR DYANSTY OF YADAVAS PANDAVAS AND KAVARAVAS WERE SHAIVITE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Shiva was a pre-Vedic god that got accepted in Hinduism in post-Vedic times, my answer would be no. The Pandavas were not Shaivite...

      Delete
  39. do you also believe that it was because of shaivaite who favoured lunar calendar instead of solar in Hinduism introduced tantric sex into Hinduism

    ReplyDelete
  40. They are the bigfoot/yeti legend. :-)

    ReplyDelete