Hanuman Was Not Monkey:- Debunking Myths About Vanaras

 

Hanuman, Angad, Bali, Sugriv were they humans or monkeys? We believe in Mahabharat and Ramayan as they are our history. But some rascals call them “mythological”. And I think the word mythological is an abuse to the glorious Indian history. This scepticism arises because certain elements of these epics seem implausible in our current context. And one of these  arguments they give is that “Vanaras” existence is not possible. So today we are going to prove their existence and we are going to save our history.

 

In the quest to unravel the true identity of Hanuman, a prevalent misconception persists among many—viewing him as a species predating Homo sapiens or dismissing him as a mere mythological character. These misinterpretations, I believe, stem from a lack of in-depth engagement with the scriptures. My exploration in the Valmiki Ramayana, guided by the insights of saints, has led me to a compelling revelation: Hanuman was, unequivocally, a human being. This assertion is not to diminish his divine stature; rather, it seeks to dispel the notion of him being a monkey and affirm his existence in a human form.

The term 'Vanara' has often been misconstrued to represent monkeys, but its actual Sanskrit meaning refers to people dwelling in forests. Valmiki, when using the term 'Vanara,' is describing humans living in jungles. But you do not know your language Sanskrit.

 

 

 

 

 The characteristics which are used for humans are used for Vanaras in Valmiki Ramayana . In Valmiki Ramayan. In Valmiki Ramayana, Sugriva, the leader of the Vanaras, is referred to as “Dharmatma”( Righteous Soul), a quality associated with humans, not monkeys. Such qualities are inherent to humans, not monkeys. Sugreev Who is a Vanar has been called Dharmatma. And Dharmatma is the quality of humans and not of monkeys. Just think and use  rational mind to think that how can a monkey be a Dharmatma? Monkeys are not Dharmatma.

 

“हृष्ट पुष्ट जन आकीर्णा पताका ध्वज शोभिता |

बभूव नगरी रम्या क्षिकिंधा गिरि गह्वरे”

-Vamiki Ramayan Kishkindha Kand 26.41

 

In this verse the word used for Vanaras is “Jana” and Jana in Sanskrit is used to denote humans.

 

Monkeys lack the ability to speak, yet Hanuman did.

 

“न अन् ऋग्वेद विनीतस्य न अ यजुर्वेद धारिणः |

न अ-साम वेद विदुषः शक्यम् एवम् विभाषितुम् || “

 

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? Absolutely not. The knowledge of the Vedas is very high. And how can the knowledge of the Vedas given to monkeys? That’s totally illogical. The high level of Vedic knowledge is beyond a monkey's grasp.

 

“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”

 

“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."

 

Hanuman's use of Sanskrit language is evident, challenging the idea of a monkey possessing such linguistic skills.

 

The wives of the Vanaras are portrayed without tails, but Vanaras are portrayed with tails. Isn’t it strange? Had monkeys marrying with humans. And then how is the reproduction possible? Isn’t that Strange. I will clear this misconception also by proving once again that the Vanaras were humans dwelling in forests and not monkeys

 

”तौ त्वया प्राकृतेनेव गत्वा ज्ञेयौ प्लवंगम।

इङ्गितानां प्रकारैश्च रूपव्याभाषणेन च ॥“

"Begone to them oh, monkey Hanuma, in a commoner's form, for your monkey-hood is distinguishable by Vali's agents, and know the intentions of those two by their conduct, by their semblance, and by their conversation, as well.... .  “

 

Here Sugriva orders hanuman to take his human form leaving his vanara form.

Also when Ram came back he saw 9,000 vanaras in form of humans.

So did they have some some powers?

I don’t know about powers but I surely know that vanars wore attire based on their local diety .

So vanaras were human living in jungles wearing attire of their local diety. And vanar community was not only community doing this. Other communities such as “Reech” of Jamavant, Nagas etc also practiced this tradition. They also dressed like their diety.

 

So Vanaras were humans but they dressed like monkeys.

 

“ऋषयश्च महात्मानः सिद्धविद्याधरोरगाः।

चारणाश्च सुतान् वीरान् ससृजुर्वनचारिणः॥“

“Mahatma, Rishi, Siddha, Vidyadhar, Naga and Charana also gave birth to brave sons in the form of Vanaras and bears roaming in the forest.”

 

How can humans give birth to monkeys. It is scientifically impossible and also not possible as per cause effect rule.

So as per Valmiki Ramayana their children had choice to go to whichever community they desired.

So Vanara was a human tribe.

 

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the intricate exploration of Hanuman's identity transcends conventional perceptions, challenging the widespread belief in his portrayal as a monkey god. Through a meticulous study of the Valmiki Ramayana and insights from revered saints, a compelling revelation emerges: Hanuman was unequivocally a human being. This revelation aims not to diminish his divine stature but to dispel the myth of his simian nature, firmly affirming his existence in a distinctly human form.

 

The prevailing misconceptions about Hanuman being a pre-Homo sapiens species or a mythical character are attributed to a failure in engaging deeply with the scriptures. The journey through the Valmiki Ramayana, guided by the wisdom of saints, unveils a profound truth—the richness of Hanuman's character lies in his embodiment as a demigod, an avatar of Shiva, in unmistakably human form.

 

A critical aspect of this exploration revolves around the portrayal of Vanaras and their union with humans. The peculiar depiction of Vanara wives without tails, in contrast to Vanaras with tails, raises questions about interspecies marriage and reproduction. By delving into these intricacies, it becomes evident that the Vanaras were not monkeys but a human tribe dwelling in forests, dressed in the attire of their local deities.

 

The linguistic nuances and Sanskrit verses from the Ramayana further support the argument that Vanaras were humans. Their qualities, such as being Dharmatma, align more with human attributes than those of monkeys. Additionally, the acknowledgment that Mahatmas, Rishis, Siddhas, Vidyadhars, Nagas, and Charanas gave birth to Vanaras reinforces their human-like nature.

 

This nuanced understanding invites a reconsideration of these revered characters as integral parts of our human history. By recognizing Hanuman as a human with divine attributes, we not only preserve the sanctity of our cultural heritage but also unravel a more profound perspective on the timeless tales of the Ramayana. It is through such nuanced interpretations that we can appreciate the depth of our mythology and its connections to our cultural roots.