Doubts in Ramayan-Are there any experts here?

[unhappyboy]

Hi All,

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine reg. Ramayan. Though not an atheist, I don't believe everything in the scriptures, especially things out of the ordinary. So I told him pointblank that we shouldn't take certain events literally. We must read between the lines.

I specifically mentioned the vanaras (or monkeys) building bridges etc. which sound impossible. But he said because it happened in the south, it might be referring to the dravidian populations of that time. He said people were still continuing to evolve at the time, and that the features of the dravidians or tamils during the ramayan era could resemble the modern apes. Which is why, he says, no such descriptions were put forth in the earlier part of ramayan, where the setting was basically north india populated by aryans.

In effect, he says the word 'vanara' is not to be confused with real monkeys that we see today, but to the ancient dravidians who had ape-like features, and still continuing to evolve.

Could this be? It sounds far fetched to me. Is it really possible that vanaras actually refer to tamils, and NOT to monkeys, as is commonly believed. Are there any experts on history here who can clarify with some evidence from any source, even ramayan, for that matter?

It'll be greatly appreciated if someone can share their insights on this subject matter.

Thanks in advance. 8-)

[pavalamani pragasam]

:shock: What an insult! Horrible imagination!!!

[unhappyboy]

:shock: What an insult! Horrible imagination!!!

My friend claims his line of reasoning is in tune with science and anthropology, especially the commonly accepted Aryan Invasion theory, and the rest. Seen in this context, ramayan will make sense, and it will prove India's glorious history; or so he claims. Which is why I want experts to post more than one-liners to get to the root of the matter.

[kannannn]

:shock: What an insult! Horrible imagination!!!

My friend claims his line of reasoning is in tune with science and anthropology, especially the commonly accepted Aryan Invasion theory, and the rest. Seen in this context, ramayan will make sense, and it will prove India's glorious history; or so he claims. Which is why I want experts to post more than one-liners to get to the root of the matter.

Sigh!! Maybe I shouldn't be answering this, but what the heck! Your 'friend' might want to know that his theory is neither scientific nor anthropological. Our ancestors have been migrating in waves over the past 2 million years, but all modern humans migrated from Africa around 60000 years ago. We all share the same route (or two routes as some would say) and that makes us equal in terms of many evolutionary markers. So there is no question of Dravidians belonging to different subspecies than the Aryans. Of course, if your 'friend' has evidence to the contrary, that would mark a revolution in the field of anthropology.

[thilak4life]

:lol:

[anbu_kathir]

I don't really get the point of it.. I mean... what changes in a common man's faith or belief if you know this really happened or not happened?

If it was not monkeys.. OK: let it be some sect of people. If we seek for one 'scientific' explanation.. then what about the rest of the stuff in the epic? I mean... Hanumans tail growing? The weapons? The flying machine Pushpaka vimaana? It would merely be an unending exercise, I feel.

To me, Ramayana and Mahabharata and other Puranas mean much more as Puranas than if they would have happened really. As Puranas, they offer many metaphors that are placed to free the mind from the droll of everyday life and living that we consider to be 'normal'. In this sense the artful/psychological descriptions of the characters and the situations invoke a certain sense of awe for the dreams of the ancients and their notions about what is sacred and what is not. A theory that relates these Puranas to scientific evidence would never ever compensate for their value as stories and myths that contain metaphors of the Divine in spiritual and physical planes of existence.

However, while I feel it is not really purposeful to decode these aspects of puranas, I also think it is surely beneficial to look for real scientific stuff/methods in the scriptures.. like the talk about the process of photosynthesis in the Mahabharata, the intuitive mathematical methods of Vedic maths, and other stuff like the rules of Sanskrit grammar that are organised in ways that may appeal to the scientists of today.

Love and Light.

[podalangai]

To me, Ramayana and Mahabharata and other Puranas mean much more as Puranas than if they would have happened really. As Puranas, they offer many metaphors that are placed to free the mind from the droll of everyday life and living that we consider to be 'normal'. In this sense the artful/psychological descriptions of the characters and the situations invoke a certain sense of awe for the dreams of the ancients and their notions about what is sacred and what is not. A theory that relates these Puranas to scientific evidence would never ever compensate for their value as stories and myths that contain metaphors of the Divine in spiritual and physical planes of existence.
:clap:

[podalangai]

Of course, if your 'friend' has evidence to the contrary, that would mark a revolution in the field of anthropology.
Not to mention evolutionary biology - he's talking about groups of people evolving from apes within recorded history! Clearly, this merits a Nobel Prize at the very least!

Incidentally, has anyone here heard about that peculiar creature of Scandinavian folklore, the troll?
I hear there are lots of them around on the internet these days...

[pavalamani pragasam]

:clap:

[Punnaimaran]

My opinion is that these puranas have to be taken only for their literary beauty and the moral values imbibed in them. The characters may not necessarily be real and we have got too many conflicting versions of them.

For example if you take the case of the stories on Star Wars, you know that the characters and the technology referred in them are purely imaginary. Now imagine a situation that there is a major disaster which wipes away majority of the populaion. If after say 500 years the people at that time get hold of the stories, it is natural for them to believe that the events mentioned in the stories had indeed taken place.

So it may also be the case with our epics.

I'll not be surprised if actress Kushboo is worshipped as a godess 5 centuries from now, though I think Jayalalitha scores better on that !!!
:D :D :D

[kannannn]

Not to mention evolutionary biology - he's talking about groups of people evolving from apes within recorded history! Clearly, this merits a Nobel Prize at the very least!
:D Reminds me of the time I had a debate about evolution with a staunchly religious acquaintance, who punctured all my arguments with a single comment: 'How can it be true when we don't see apes evolving into humans today'.

[thilak4life]

Not to mention evolutionary biology - he's talking about groups of people evolving from apes within recorded history! Clearly, this merits a Nobel Prize at the very least!
:D Reminds me of the time I had a debate about evolution with a staunchly religious acquaintance, who punctured all my arguments with a single comment: 'How can it be true when we don't see apes evolving into humans today'.

:lol: No offense meant. I have many religious friends as well. But Nietzsche once said, "After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." :yessir:

[pavalamani pragasam]

achchachO! stirring a hornet's nest? :wink:

[kannannn]

No offense meant. I have many religious friends as well. But Nietzsche once said, "After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." :yessir:

AahA, pathavachutingale..

[unhappyboy]

Thanks for all your replies, very much appreciated. :D I will confront my friend with this.

But one other thing out of curiosity. It's about physical appearance. If we look at Aryans in the north, they look totally European, regardless of skin color. Even a dark-skinned North Indian has the same facial features as that of a European.

But tamils/dravidians are not only predominantly black-skinned, but also possess features typical of aborigines, blacks etc., such as thick lips, big nose, curly hair, dark skin, and the rest.

From the above, does it follow that dravidians are essentially of the same racial stock as the Negroes and aborigines, and that North Indians are more european/aryan? :idea:

What's the common conclusion/belief on this? I am asking, because physical appearance cannot be dismissed, it's something unmistakable. People may dismiss history, saying facts aren't reliable, but the facial features, skin color etc. are things you actually perceive on an everyday basis, so there's no question of tampering with facts in this regard.

[pavalamani pragasam]

In my PG course I learnt in language class that sanskrit belonged to a family of 8 European languages. So must be the people speaking it. Dravidians may have African relatives who by no means are inferior in any way! Colour/complexion prejudice/discrimination is a bane of the British rule of our country for so long! Tamilan enRu solladaa, thalai nimirnthu nilladaa! :2thumbsup: 'karupputhaan enakku pidichcha kalaru'!

[unhappyboy]

In my PG course I learnt in language class that sanskrit belonged to a family of 8 European languages. So must be the people speaking it. Dravidians may have African relatives who by no means are inferior in any way! Colour/complexion prejudice/discrimination is a bane of the British rule of our country for so long! Tamilan enRu solladaa, thalai nimirnthu nilladaa! :2thumbsup: 'karupputhaan enakku pidichcha kalaru'!

Good point, it's not about inferiority or superiority. It's simply about facing the fact that North Indians are aryans/europeans, and southies are dravidians/negroes. Thanks for understanding this. :)

[anbu_kathir]

Good point, it's not about inferiority or superiority. It's simply about facing the fact that North Indians are aryans/europeans, and southies are dravidians/negroes. Thanks for understanding this. :)

Unhappyboy, I think you gotto get to the DNA scientists for this. To make such a distinction as 'southies' being dravidian/negro and 'northies' being Aryan/European, one should get the DNA of every single human on the planet and trace his/her ancestry (what if they had married inter-racially? I guess thats why there's a "mother" line and a "father" line of ancestry .. LOL. And there's even an "average" country of our ancestors.. wonderful! Thanks for making me learn this! ).

I hope that, by the time the experiment is 'complete', everyone still remains/becomes human, in a way one of my favourite authors have said - " Humanity is not a gift of nature, it is a spiritual achievement to be earned. " - Richard Bach

Here are some links...in case you are interested.

http://www.rootsforreal.com/

http://www.dna-fingerprint.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=20&page=1

Love and Light.

[Badri]

I am locking this thread. I personally think it has been started with a mischievous intent.

Unhappyboy, you have been known to start such threads earlier too. Stirring up a healthy debate is always welcome in the Hub but talk about Dravidian and Aryan is not within the scope of this Forum.

If any one feels a compelling need for this thread to be opened, PM me.