Who was Hanuman?--Part II

I have discussed the mythological background of Lord Hanuman's story and how they praise and castigate him at the same time in the Part I of the post. Now I will go to the depth, relating the stories of Ramayan historically. Before that a legend will be presented.

Photo source: www.santabanta.com

The Legend of Sage Valmiki and Lord Hanuman

Adikavi( aadi= first, kavi= poet) Valmiki wrote his manuscript for his version of Ramayan. By some sources, he came to know that Lord Hanuman had written a version of Ramayan, the Hanumad Ramayan. Valmiki went to the Himalayas to meet the Lord and demanded a look at the Hanumad Ramayan. He read the version prepared by Lord Hanuman. Legend has it that he was so diasppointed, that he said, "Lord Hanuman, your version of Ramayan will be forgotten. Mine is far superior than yours." Lord Hanuman was then dejected. He threw his manuscript and never published it. Valmiki's version was published and promoted making it the household lore. Later Mahakavi, the Great Poet, Kalidas found a page of Hanumad Ramayan which became inspiration for his own version of Ramayan.

When the legend seems to have ended, I begin an analysis of this legend. What does Valmiki mean when he says the Hanumad Ramayan would be forgotten? And why does he say so? Was it a sort of conspiracy? If the log-book of someone who helped Lord Ram accomplish his journey is rejected by the Great Sage, have the bitter truths of Ram's journey and Hanuman's life been concealed?

The legend leads to the main quest of the post: Who was Hanuman? Mythological background been presented in Part I of the post, I will proceed into some historical possibilities based on two theories.

1. The Mutant Theory

(This theory is based on some blogs on the Internet and on The Shiva Trilogy by Amish Tripathi.)

A mutant?  What is a mutant doing in a story that old. Where did the mutants come from? That would be the greatest quest in Hinduism! However, I will introduce some possible mutants in the Ramayan itself.

• Ravan, the "antagonist" of the epic was a mutant. How? His name Dashanan suggests so. If he really had ten heads protruding from the trunk, he must have been a mutant.

• Suparnakha, the sister of Ravan, whose mistreatment by Ram and Lakshman lead to the abduction of Sita. Her name itself means "bird-beaked". She had a bird's beak on her face instead of nose and mouth.

• Jambavan, the bear-man, friend and mentor of Hanuman. He had hairy body with the face like that of a bear.

• Jatayus, the vulture like beings in the forest near Kiskinda had feathered bodies and beaks.

• Simhika, a protector of Ashok Vatika in Lanka, had the head of a lion. 

These were only some representative characters. There are also mentions of Rakshyasas, who were bigger than normal humans. Nags mentioned in other Sanskrit texts represent human-serpent form. The Ashwini Kumars, the doctors of Gods were centaurs. Even Lord Ganesh seems to be a mutant with an elephantine head.
                                                            Another legend
When Lord Manu established a kingdom safe from all sorts of sea-floods on the northern part of Jambudweep, he prohibited people from going to the south of Narmada River. However, humans were living there, most certainly mutants, abandoned by the "normal" humans away from the main civilization.

                                                           X-Men of the Past
With abandonment, came vengeance. Ravan must have been the leader of the revolt against the "normal" people. They knew they were better that the rest and used their abilities in disturbing the peace of others. There might have been some mutants who disagreed with Ravan and his actions, leading to factions among the mutants.(While writing this, I feel I am citing the story of X-Men. Ravan seems like Magneto and Bali, the king of Vanars before Sugriv, seems like Professor X. Ravan and Bali were best friends at first but Ravan went on to try dominate the world.)
Vanars were, thus a group of mutant with distorted face and tails. They were in search of their identities in the "normal" world. They did that with Lord Hanuman. The mutants at last were able to show that they were better than most humans and earned a certain degree of respect.
The respect does not seem long-lasting, though. No mention of Vanars has been made after the end of the Great War. Lord Hanuman, who could have served Lord Ram at Ayodhya resorted in the Himalayas. The disapproval of his version of Ramayan by Valmiki might not have been his alone but that of Lord Ram himself. (It would be convenient for the readers to state here that Lord Ram was still the king of Ayodhya when Valmiki had written the Ramayan and had been appointed as the promoter of the Raghuvansis. That might explain why Valmiki said that his version of Ramayan was superior.)

2. The Non-Mutant Theory/The Forest Clans Theory 

The problem with the Mutant Theory is that I don't have the proof for the mutagen that induced such a prominent mutation. While Amish Tripathi mentions Somras(or Amrit) as the mutagen, there is no evidence of such. So I introduce my own theory (applicable to the Ramayan only-till date). Also, paleontological studies do not indicate presence of mutants, assuming that the paleontologists haven't been wronged.
So, I come up with the world with all normal humans. The above examples change accordingly.

• Ravan did not have ten heads. Instead, he was wise and intelligent. His capacity would have been to think as much as ten heads would at a time, thus the name Dashanan.
•  Suparnakha must have had a long, crooked nose rather than the bird-beak. 
•  Jambavan must have had a hairy body but strong physique. He must have descended from the Bear-clan, one of the strongest clans of forest dwellers.
• Jatayus may have been a clan that were quick and lived on high trees wearing feathered clothes to trick their enemies. They must also have had the ability to glide from one tree to another safely. Gliding is always often mistaken for flying!
• Simhika may have been like a lioness, fearless and strong among the women. The name might have been a title assigned after she assisted Ravan in wars.
• Vanars must have been the witty of all the forest clans. The combination of knowledge of Vanars, Jatayus and Bears seem prominent in Hanuman.

The characters of Ramayan have been described. However, I still find it difficult to explain other characters that have been so easily described by the Mutation Theory. And that's the most difficult challenge in explaining the stories without the consideration of any mutants.

And in all this, I see the mightiest, the bravest and the most humble Hanuman, who could have gained anything with the help of Ayodhya, but chose to live in the Himalayas. He might either have been a mutant or a forest-dweller or both and he must have been alienated there.  

 

Who was Hanuman?--Part I

Hanuman is the central character of famous Sanskrit epic Ramayan. He has been ascribed as an accomplice to Lord Ram and Lord Lakshman during their search for Lady Sita. The most revered among the Vanars, he is a "Lord" himself.

Photo source: www.santabanta.com

Mythological Background

Lord Hanuman, the son of Vayu or Pavan and Anjana looks like a mythical creature. The monkey face and the long tail are the features that distinguish him from other Lords. The Ramayan tells that he was a Vanar. Vanar whether meant the forest-dweller or the monkey can be a debatable question which I will discuss in the Part II of this post.

Hanuman first comes in the story of the Ramayan in Kiskinda Kanda. Lady Sita has been taken away by Ravan, the king of Lanka, and Lord Ram and his brother Lord Lakshman reach the mountain of Kiskinda where they encounter the Vanars. Hanuman disguises himself as a beautiful Brahmin boy and meets Lord Ram for the first time.

Here, I think Hanuman did not look like monkey at all. His face and physique have been described to be like a "normal" human would look. And if he was a monkey, how could he speak a human language? We have not been able to talk to monkeys as yet. However, if you insisting on keeping his face like that of a monkey and giving him a tail, I have a theory on it, which I will be describing in Part II of the post. The Brahmin boy then would be an art, a masked guise with the tail well concealed!

Being a forest-dweller, Lord Hanuman was well trained in jumping and swimming. The accounts of him going in the water to look at the construction of Ram Setu is a proof of his abilities to swim. The abilities of making long jumps, attributed as "flying", must have been the reason he reached Lanka.

Hanuman was the first to reach Lanka without the invitation or the abduction. He was also the wisest. To defend himself from the Brahmastra of Indrajit and to surrender in order to meet Ravan seem to be the wisest deeds. He was able to burn down the palace of Lanka, though in agony.

While he seems wise enough to challenge Ravan, the way he "carries" a hill for bringing the herb of Sanjivani is quite difficult to understand. Could he really have not known what Sanjivani herb looked like? As a forest-dweller, he should have known it better than the others. The mythologies describing his strength over his wisdom have even forgotten that he was blessed with wisdom and wit by Lord Brahma himself. Lord Surya was his teacher. I don't understand why Lord Hanuman would carry a mountain when he could find the herb himself. Whether it was his temper, show-off of his strength or a conspiracy in favour of Lord Ram, that I am not quite certain.

Lord Hanuman, as previously stated, was an accomplice to Lord Ram and his devotee too. He even killed a woman (Simhika), one of the protectors of Ashok Vatika in Lanka. He faced the temper of Ravan and his sons, saved Lord Lakshman, brought Lord Ram and Lady Sita together. His contribution to Lord Ram would make an excitingly long list. However, after the Great War between Ram and Ravan, he self-exiled himself to the Himalayas, where he lived his life meditating and writing his experiences. The writing however, would be lost, to deny ourselves of all the truths of the Ramayan.

Did such a thing really happened? Or, was it a tattoo display?

A possible solution to one of the most interesting question at the end of the Part I of this post: How did Lord Hanuman tear up his chest to show Lord Ram with Lady Sita? Mythologies say that he tore up his chest to show the images of his Lord and Lady. I say that did not happen. How can anyone, even as strong as Hanuman, tear up his own chest? The story must be an over-exaggeration. I, therefore conclude that Lord Hanuman had removed his armour to reveal his tattooed chest. Tattooing is nothing less than tearing yourself apart!   

More on Who was Hanuman?--Part II