Questions on the Tripura Myth: Construction and Settlement

The Tripura is one of the mind-boggling architectural structures mentioned in the Puranas such as Shiva Purana, Vishnu Purana, and Skanda Purana. The Tripura was not a single structure but three independent structures made of iron (or bronze?), silver and gold. The Puranas describe them as splendid cities floating in the sky. The architect, Mayasura has been praised for the grandeur of these cities and has been described as the major achievement of the Asuras[1] (humankind?). The destruction of the city, too has been detailed. Lord Shiva using grand chariot, bow and a nuclear-like weapon called the Pashupatastra brings an end to the magnificient cities as well as the Asuras.

My aim here, though is not to feed the readers with the Puranic stories. I have been thinking about the story for some days regularly now (I have my own reasons for contemplation) and suddenly I came to think over the process by which the Tripura was built. It is not only about defying the gravity. There are many other things that seem unachievable that the Asuras achieved by constructing the Tripura. Yet the more I think of it, the crazier it gets. How could the Tripura have been made?

I have presented my questions point-wise and will try to explain them as simply as I can. They are in the chronological order as they appear during the construction and inhabitation of the Tripura. I have not presented any question on the destruction of the three cities. That may make up another article.

THE CONSTRUCTION

Question 1. Who did the penance to please Lord Brahma?

Every version story of the Tripura begins with a penance by three Asuras. But there is no unanimity upon who the penants were. One version tells that they were the sons of Tarak- Tarakaksh, Kamalaksh and Vidyunmali- after Tarak died in the battle from the hands of Kartikeya. The other version presents Tarak himself as the penant along with Maya (mentioned as Mayasura above) and Vidyunmali. Which of the trios pleased Brahma? This question is important to check whether the story we have known is a history or a myth. Had there been a single group of three penants, the story would be consistent. The two groups adds inconsistency and also loses the story's stance as a history. It becomes more inclined towards myth. [2]

Question 2. Where were the cities made?

This is the most difficult question I have come through. There are three possibilities. Within each possibilities, there are also problems which seem to have been overlooked (or I may not have understood).
The first possibility is that the Tripura was made on land. But the Tripura was a floating city- almost like the modern-day International Space Station. (Even grander!) How were three cities established to orbit around the earth. Yeah, their timing must have been different because they were on three different levels. But to establish a city on space, the Asuras must have launched a rocket and with precise calculations set them. Because Maya, Brahma and Shukra were on their side during construction, we can assume that they achieved the feat, but the Earth had been scoured by the Deva-Asura war. There was no chance the Devas would let the Asuras make such huge structures with ease. With the Earth under their rule, Asuras have been said to have resorted to the Patal, the Underworld. Construction of three grand structures on land seems difficult.

So, we move to the second possibility- the sky. If you are making something that floats on space, why not make it on space? But let's observe the modern trend. Do we make satellites on the space or on the land? Obviously, building satellites on sky would be difficult because of the huge number of materials needed to be transported up above the escape velocity. A huge consumption of fuel and time. Also, building anything on space would require huge amount of oxygen supply, and good insulation of workers against the solar flares. Could the A sure have obtained it? Building castle on space is even more difficult that building it on air. And they made three. The possibility of the Tripura being built on sky seems thinner than the atmosphere there.

The third possibility is that the cities were made in Patal. They were shot up in the sky and were fixed on their orbit.The problems mentioned on the first two possibilities are still prevalent.

To have built such grand structures without the intervention of the Devas would be an almost impossible feat. The Asuras did it brilliantly. And that is the biggest wonder ever[3].

THE SETTLEMENT[4]

Question 3. How did the residents of the Tripura reach there?

The Puranas not only describe the construction but also the settlement. A huge numbers of humans including Asuras, Manusyas, Apsaras, Gandharvas, Yakshas, Nagas are said to have lived there. How Maya and his contemporaries provided their need of oxygen and food is the question that actually troubled me. Without the mention of some device that helped them breathe and control gravity, the settlement would be too difficult. How did such a huge number of people migrate to the Tripura? Did they have spacecraft? Of what sizes? Also, the three penants ruled upon the cities. What did they use to travel between the cities? Transportation would be simpler with Vimanas (aircrafts/spacecrafts) but the number of people who lived there must have required a huge number of them. Who would have mass produced them? Maya and his team of scientists? That's a faint light of hope if I would be taken to the mythological Tripura. Everything else looks an almost impossible feat to me.

[N.B.: 1. The Asuras do not necessarily mean evil neither do Devas always mean good. In fact, Indra, Agni, Vayu (Devas) have been called Asuras in the Rig Veda.

2. I disagree with the popular belief that Vyas was the writer of all the Puranas. One person would not have made the mistake of writing different names of the Trios that pleased Brahma. Either the stories were modified with time or  the Sage made a mistake unknowingly.

3. The Tripura was not just an architectural marvel but it was also (and is till date) an advanced technological achievement (considering Puranas speak history). Else it was the best thing that could be imagined by the writer (Vyas?) of the story.

4. No city can flourish without human settlement and their activities. A lot of resources are needed to sustain lives. How they were provided would provided in a satellite city could be a topic of debate.

5. This article is in fact an arrow in the darkness. I may not get an answer here. Yet, it is a beginning and I expect someone to go through this article and begin questioning on the things that they might have overlooked in the story. I also expect(with rare probability) the logical and more scientific answers to these questions. That means, divinity will be out of the equation. "Divine interference/involvement" is an answer that kills our reasoning abilities.]

References

i. http://www.apamnapat.com

ii. http://talesfrommythology.blogspot.nl

iii. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_(mythology)

iv. Shree Swasthani Vrat Katha (A part of Magh Mahatmya of Skanda Purana)

Kaikeyi -- the Mother

In my last post (it seems to have appeared almost a year ago!), I had written about Kaikeyi's mother and how Sumantra, the Kosal Minister had accused her of being like her mother. In this post, I am going to investigate the motherly nature of Kaikeyi and how she suffered an unpleasant fate out of that love.

Manthara and Kaikeyi 

When King Dashrath declares the coronation of Ram, Kaikeyi is elated. Seeing this, Manthara says:

मनसा प्रहसामि त्वां देवि दुःखार्धिता सती |
यच्छोचितव्ये हृष्टासि प्राप्येदं व्यसनं महत् || २-८-३
शोचामि दुर्मतित्वं ते का हि प्राज्ञा प्रहर्षयेत् |
अरेः सपत्नीपुत्रस्य वृद्धिं मृत्युमिवागताम् || २-८-४
भरतादेव रामस्य राज्यसाधारणाद्भयम् |
तद्विचिन्त्य विषण्णास्मि भय भीताद्धि जायते || २-८-५

(Oh, queen! Though stricken with grief, I mentally laugh at you in that you are rejoicing at the time when a great calamity is befalling you. I am lamenting over your foolish mind. Does any intelligent woman feel happy over the prosperity of a stepson who is considered an enemy? Does it not amount to praising a befalling death? Rama has a fear about Bharata because Bharata has equal rights over the kingdom. In thinking about this matter, I am getting anguished. Do we not get disasters from those who are afraid of us?)

She adds:
विदुषः क्षत्रचारित्रे प्राज्ञस्य प्राप्तकारिणः |
भयात्प्रवेपे रामस्य चिन्तयन्ती तवात्मजम् || २-८-८
(Rama is a learned man and a political statesman. His actions are timely and appropriate. When thinking of your son's calamity to be resulted from Rama, I get shaken with fear.)

In reply, Kaikeyi says:

धर्मज्ञो गुरुभिर्दान्तः कृतज्ञ सत्यवाक्चुचि |
रामो राज्ञः सुतो ज्येष्ठो यौवराज्यमतोऽर्हति || २-८-१४

(Rama knows all righteousness. Elders trained him. He has a proper gratitude. He speaks truth. He has a clean conduct. He is the eldest son of king Dasaratha and hence eligible for the kingdom.)

She believes that there is no difference between Ram and Bharat. She thinks that coronation of Ram would be equivalent to coronation of Bharat. Manthara calls this stupid and convinces Kaikeyi that only one of the four sons would be crowned. And that one Prince, she suggests, should be Bharat.

Kaikeyi, who had never thought that way before(- according to the Valmiki Ramayan), now thinks of Bharat, who has stayed in Ayodhya (capital of Kosal) the least among the four brothers. Bharat has spent most of his childhood at his maternal uncle's abode, unknown of the most affairs in Ayodhya. The news of coronation had not reached him yet. Now, she perceives that Bharat had been kept away from the 'power politics' of Ayodhya by Dashrath for long. With the advise from Manthara, she asks for two (most popular) boons to the King: coronation of Bharat and fourteen years of exile to Ram.

Ram's Response

When Ram comes to know that the King has been unconscious for a reason he did not know then, he meets Sumantra. He knows of the boons asked by his step-mother Kaikeyi and meeting her, says:

एवम् अस्तु गमिष्यामि वनम् वस्तुम् अहम् तु अतः |
जटा चीर धरः राज्ञः प्रतिज्ञाम् अनुपालयन् || २-१९-२

(Let it be, as you said it. I shall fulfil the king's promise, go to the forest from here to reside there, wearing braided hair and covered with a hide.)

He then leaves the palace and the kingdom to reside into the dreaded forest of Dandak. His wife Sita and his brother Lakshman follow him. Lakshman not only exiles himself but also departs from his wife, Urmila.

Bharat's response 

When Bharat returns from his uncle's, King Dashrath has passed away. He asks his mother Kaikeyi what had happened to Dashrath and where had Ram gone. Kaikeyi explains all she had done to crown him. Bharat accuses and curses her:

कुलस्य त्वम् अभावाय काल रात्रिर् इव आगता |
अन्गारम् उपगूह्य स्म पिता मे न अवबुद्धवान् || २-७३-४
भ्रूणहत्याम् असि प्राप्ता कुलस्य अस्य विनाशनात् |
कैकेयि नरकम् गच्च मा च भर्तुः सलोकताम् || २-७४-४

(You came for destruction of our race, like the night of destruction coming at the end of the world. My father could not be aware of his embracing a live char-coal to his bosom. O, Kaikeyi! You got the sin of killing an embryo because of the destruction of this race. O, Kaikeyi! Go to hell. Do not get the residence in the same heaven as your husband.)

He also vows that he would bring Ram back to the kingdom. When he fails to do so, he asks for Ram's kharau (sandals) and places them upon the throne. Unlike what most of us think, he does not rule the kingdom. He, instead lives the life of the hermit, Shatrughna actually ruling the kingdom in Ram's name.

How Bharat lived has been described in the Yuddha Kaanda. After the victory of Ram in the great war against Ravan, Hanuman goes off to convey message of Ram to Bharat. This is what he sees:       

  
क्रोशमात्रे त्वयोध्यायाश्चीरकृष्णाजिनाम्बरम् || ६-१२५-२९
ददर्श भरतं दीनं कृशमाश्रमवासिनम् |
जटिलं मलदिग्धाङ्गं भ्रातृव्यसनकर्शितम् || ६-१२५-३०
फलमूलाशिनं दान्तं तापसं धर्मचारिणम् |
समुन्नतजटाभारं वल्कलाजिनवाससं || ६-१२५-३१
नियतं भावितात्मानं ब्रह्मर्षिसमतेजसं |
पादुके ते पुरस्कृत्य शासन्तं वै वसुन्धराम् || ६-१२५-३२
चतुर्वर्ण्यस्य लोकस्य त्रातारं सर्वतो भयात् |
उपस्थितममात्यैश्च शुचिभिश्च पुरोहितैः || ६-१२५-३३
बलमुख्यैश्च युक्तैश्च काषायाम्बरधारिभिः |

(At a distance of two miles from Ayodhya Hanuman  saw Bharata, living in a hermitage, with the bark trees and the skin of a black antelope wrapped round his waist, looking miserable and emaciated, wearing matted locks on his head, his limbs coated with dirt, afflicted through separation from Rama his elder brother, subsisting on roots and fruits, with his senses subdued, engaged in austerities, protecting virtue, with a very high head of matted hair, covering his body with the bark of trees and a deer skin, disciplined, whose thoughts were fixed on the Supreme Spirit, with a splendour equalling that of a Brahmanical sage, ruling the earth after placing the wooden sandals before him, protecting the people belonging to all the four grades (viz. Brahmans Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras) from all peril and attended by the upright ministers, priests and by clever troop-commanders, all clad in saffron robes.)

Kaikeyi's Failure

In all these, we can see the failure of Kaikeyi as a mother and as a wife. Her love for Bharat proved worthless as he not only rejected the throne but also cursed her as the destroyer of the race. Her demands became curse to King Dashrath, who died after Ram was exiled. Almost every Hindus, who are acquainted with the Ramayan, hate her for being cruel towards Ram and her husband.

My Personal Opinion

As I have read somewhere in the web, Ram would not have been Ram if he had not been exiled. Without those adventures, the Ramayan would have completed at the end of Book I - the Bal Kanda, where the four Princes, after their marriages, would have 'lived happily ever after'. It is Kaikeyi, who sends Ram to the forest and gives him an opportunity to know himself. 

Even after being sent to the forest, Ram never stops praising Kaikeyi. I personally believe that Kaikeyi had instructed Ram to go to the forest of Dandak because it was the border between Kosal and Lanka. Dandak had been strategically used by Ravan to threaten Kosal and its allies. Ram was a valiant warrior, who could sneak into the forest along with Lakshman to slowly destroy the Demon army of Ravan. The only setback was Sita's kidnapping but that too, proved its worth for Ram. Kaikeyi never hated Ram. The boons she had asked were due to insecurities sprouted by the words of Manthara. In that sense, I believe that Kaikeyi showed that she was a worthy mother.

*N.B.: The Sanskrit slokas and there translations have been derived from www.valmikiramayan.net.    

(P.S.: The words of Manthara have been described as evil, even by Valmiki. I don't think so. Words which made Ram a Lord from a common man, cannot be evil at all!)

Ahilya's Story--A History of Male Domination

A story is told by Viswamitra as he leads Ram and Lakshman to the ashram of Gautam-a sage, Royal teacher of King Janak and  ‘most honoured by the Gods who dwell above the sky.’ The story is famous as the story of Indra and Ahilya.

I don’t want to get into the details of the story which has been retold for generations via the Valmiki Ramayan and many others who had read or heard the Ramayan and many know(actually they think they know!) that Ahilya, being driven by lust kept immoral relationship with Indra-king of Gods and cursed by her husband into becoming a stone until Ram noticed, came and touched her. Have we been diverted from the truth? Yes, we have been diverted from the truth.

1. What Valmiki Ramayan Says

The Ramayan describes her as counter-part of Gautam until this incident and even lists her as Pancha Kanya (also known as Five Satis-Devotees of their husbands) along with Sita, Tara, Mandodari and Draupadi. (It is strange that all these women suffered male domination!) The arrival of Indra is described as in the lines below:

‘It chanced the saint had gone away,
When Town-destroying Indra came,
And saw the beauty of the dame.’

Based on these lines, I don’t see Ahilya as the culprit because she did not even have a hint that Indra was coming. I find the culprit in Indra(Why is he being culprit in my every post?). Ramayan of other writers of have given in details, the preparation made by Indra and cause of Gautam’s absence which I don’t think should be detailed. I am concerned with everything that happened after the sage's departure.

2. What I have to Say

What was her reaction after seeing her husband coming back so soon and knowing that he was Indra instead? This question is important if we regard Ahilya as a noble woman. She was wife of one of the most heeded scholars of that age and happy with her conjugal life. Then could she have submitted herself to Indra at once to fulfill fer lust? That’s not possible at all. ‘But touched by love’s unholy fire, She yielded to the God’s desire.’ Such defaming lines have been used for Ahilya in Valmiki Ramayan but don’t the two word’s “God’s desire” not explain that Ahilya was under the authority of Indra. Who is the culprit-- Indra, the mightier who suppressed a lady, or Ahilya-- the inferior? The answer should have been Indra, but our blind-folded eyes see guilt on Ahilya. Shame on us!

Had this incident been a matter of love affair or adultery, I would not have to speak against Gautam, what he did to his wife might have been pardonable but this is a matter of crime. Crime on Ahilya by a male dominant society! Indra tricks Gautam into going out of the house at night, comes in his guise and meets Ahilya whom he tells who he is. She is then seduced by the king of Swarga Just as in modern times, this was a crime  then but the victim was much victimized than the culprit. (Such trend still exists, must be the remnants of the past!)

After returning from the river, feeling that the daylight was far off, Gautam sees Indra rushing in a hurry. Ramayan says he was cursed but I don’t believe it. Had he been cursed, how could he forever become the King of Gods! He then curses the lady to remain as dead as stone and goes away saying he cannot accept her. (Life OK’s Mahadev showed that the curse on Indra was lifted by Parvati on the request of young Ganesh. How could anyone, that too a woman, lift the punishment for such a crime on mere request of a child? Was she afraid of Indra? Had she not lifted the curse and punished Indra even more, there would have been an inspiration for a secured society for women at present. Alas! That did not happen, not even on a contemporary show.)

Being a wise sage, why could Gautam not accept his wife or revolting against Indra? This idea haunts me whenever I read, watch or hear the story and I imagine him doing so. But what I imagine had not occurred at all! Gautam was a learned-man(educated man) and though people say such men are wise, I don’t think so. They are actually the ones who live for the prevalent traditions of the society. Gautam is the best example of Rousseau’s citizen. Yes, he was scared of the society. What would others say if he accepted a woman who had “crossed her limits”? He knew the question would arise and instead of answering, he abandoned his wife at the state of distress. This led the society to believe her as the culprit and apparently, Indra benefited. As a king, no one would raise questions on him and what would have happened if he was questioned? All the blame would go to the dame who had no one to support. What became of her life? Everyone knows--as dead as stone and the one who regained a little consciousness when Ram kicked her. (Ramayan says that Ram touched Ahilya on her head to bring her back to consciousness. It is to be noted that very few people visited that lonely cottage after Gautam left. Vishwamitra, Ram and Lakshman had reached near the cottage in the evening and Ram had been curious of Ahilya. How Ahilya survived that long might be a different question, but Ram kicked her during her unconsciousness. And it might have been other body parts as well, not only the head!)

I often think, “Had Gautam defended his wife and made Indra confess his sin, there would have been a more secure society for women.” His action might have affected him then but would have created ideal society for women. 

Conclusion

The present society-it lives in duality. Sometimes it says Ahilya a scarlet woman and sometimes respects her as devotee to husband(who left her at time of distress!) This duality, which still exists, would have been ended a long time ago had Gautam raised his voice against the crimes of the SHAMELESS Indra.[i]

---

[i] The texts in Italics have been derived from The RÁMÁYAN of VÁLMÍKI Translated into English Verse, Ralph T. H. Griffith, 1870-1874.

Goma's Birth and Curse on Her

The nineteenth chapter of Shree Swasthani Vrat Katha (derived from Magha Mahatmya of Skanda Puran) deals with the birth of Goma and the curse given to her. In both cases, there are plenty of myths.

First, let us look at the birth of Goma. Her parents Shivabhatta and Sati are poor Brahmans and devotees of LordGanesh. They worship Him every Tuesday in the hope of getting wealth as boon. Happy with their devotion, Lord Ganesh apparates and says, “Next Tuesday, when you come over here for worship, you shall find something. Take it home and keep it on a plate covering with another plate. After 4 days, that shall turn to gold.” And then he disapparates. Next Tuesday, they find a laddoo and keep it as instructed. What a wonderful surprise! They find a piece of gold in its place and soon become rich. They even donate the riches to the poor and their popularity also increases. But they do not have a child. So they worship Ganesh again. He appears and says, “Next Tuesday, when you come to worship, you shall see a cow. She shall look at you and after a while she shall defecate. At that moment, before the dung hits the ground, catch it and take it home. Keep it on a plate covering with a plate. Then you may find a daughter. You shall not get a son though, because you had not kept that in your previous life.” Then he disappears. They do as instructed, and a daughter is born out of cow-dung and that is the reason why her name becomes Goma.  

This is what the story says and its too mythical. The same thing could have been recorded, which I believe is much close to truth, as:

The Brahmans Shivabhatta and his wife went to worship Lord Ganesh every Tuesday. As they were poor, they were in want of riches. One day, they found a big piece of gold mistaking it for a laddoo, took it home. When they found out that it was gold, they became happy and started trading on gold which gave them riches and money enough to live securely and also to donate to the poor. Being poor was one small problem but having riches without heir or protector was a greater one. One day, as they were worshipping Ganesh, they happened to see a newly born, abandoned girl beside a heap of cow-dung. They adopted the child and named her Goma.

Please take a look at the original text and my suggestion. The original one looks like a story made up by Shivabhatta and his wife to explain their sudden prosperity and begetting of a daughter. And our Guru Ved Vyas kept it in Puran without even double checking the probability of the story. Still, some Pundits say he was a historian and Purans speak history. Shameful, it is that we have been misled by our greatest teacher! What would intellectuals say if we believe in stories in which a girl is born out of cow-dung—fools? Also, the statement of not getting a son because of the Karma of previous life--who has ever seen the previous lives and proved that? Does it not imply gender discrimination?

Now, let’s look at the circumstances at which Goma is cursed. As popularity of Shivabhatta increased, Indra, along with his brothers (Gods/Devas) goes to Lord Shiva’s abode Kailash and says, “O Lord! Shivabhatta and his wife worshipped your son Ganesh and gained enormous wealth which they have also been donating to the poor. This has brought a threat on to Amaravati (Heaven’s capital). They also gained a daughter from your son’s blessings. So, please do something O Lord! And help us protect Amaravati.” Lord Shiva immediately agrees and goes to Shivabhatta’s house in the guise of a sage and asks alms with a five-year-old Goma. As she is busy in her chores, she keeps him waiting for sometime but does give the alms. The sage then asks rice grains to be used for daily Pooja (worship) to which she refuses. Then all of suuden, enraged sage curses,”May your parents’ wealth diminish, may you be married to a 70-year-old, may you suffer a lot and may your parents die soon.” And then he goes away giving tears to the little girl.

Why such harsh curse for such a small innocent child? The question is not asked by me alone but also by her mother Sati and many people who have read it. And I have some possible reasons: Insecurity of Indra (seen in many stories where he cannot rule well but still wants the post of “Dev Raj”), and the jealousy of Shiva with Ganesh. Questions arise- Was Lord Shiva  jealous of Ganesh? Does the provocation by Indra mentioning the name of his son as the God worshipped by the Brahmans and the action taken by him not suggest jealousy? And the curse- of course, it was planned. Otherwise the sage may have cursed the little girl only saying she did sin by making him wait, he would not have cursed her parents.

    
Why should we blindly believe that God loves us? If poor becoming rich brings their reign in difficulty, how are they different from present day leaders? To hide the inefficiency of the rule of Devas, myths were made. Because we are led to believe that they were true, we blindly say, “Yeah, that was what had happened.” It’s high time we change the way we think.

Was Valmiki the Original Writer of the Ramayana?

What a funny and stupid title? Who does not know that Ramayan was written by Valmiki? This is not a matter for discussion! These might be your immediate reactions. But I have found something what is worth discussion.

These stanzas are from "The Ramayan of Valmiki, translated into English verse" by Ralph T.H. Griffith published around 1870s.

"Praise to Válmíki, bird of charming song
Who mounts on Poesy’s sublimest spray,
And sweetly sings with accent clear and strong
  Ráma, aye Ráma, in his deathless lay.

Where breathes the man can listen to the strain
  That flows in music from Válmíki’s tongue,
Nor feel his feet the path of bliss attain
  When Ráma’s glory by the saint is sung!

The stream Rámáyan leaves its sacred fount
  The whole wide world from sin and stain to free.

 The Prince of Hermits is the parent mount,
  The lordly Ráma is the darling sea.

Glory to him whose fame is ever bright!
  Glory to him, Prachetas’ holy son!
Whose pure lips quaff with ever new delight
  The nectar-sea of deeds by Ráma done.

Hail, arch-ascetic, pious, good, and kind!
  Hail, Saint Válmíki, lord of every lore!
Hail, holy Hermit, calm and pure of mind!
  Hail, First of Bards, Válmíki, hail once more!"

These stanzas are present in "Invocation". I would have thought that the translator had written these if he had not added the following footnote:

"The MSS.(manuscripts written in the original language) vary very considerably in these stanzas of invocation: many lines are generally prefixed in which not only the poet, but those who play the chief parts in the poem are panegyrized. It is self-apparent that they are not by the author of the Rámáyan himself."

But I have never read the Sanskrit version(I am not a Sanskrit scholar so I don't think I would have ever understood). I haven't even read other translated versions. So, I would be grateful if someone joined the discussion and solved my doubts.

Since I believe that no author praises himself, I think Griffith presents his findings during the translation. Even if Valmiki is the writer, the writing of the events of Rama's life are believed to be after 16 years(Is this TRUE?) of his enthronement(after returning from the forest) that too, when Narad Muni asks him to write the story in slokas invented by Valmiki. As Valmiki hears the complete story from Brahma( some say Brahma gave him yogic powers and through which he was able to see all the events as a seer which I believe is false), it is apparent that he associated the story with myth. What I believe is that Valmiki sang the Ramayan which he taught to Luv and Kusa and was later written by someone else.