Misconceptions about Rāmāyaṇa

When the*Govt announced Lockdown , I thought, with much significant to do, I should utilize this Quarantine in some Svādhyāya (Self-study), So I decided to read the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. When the Govt announced the re-telecast of Mahābhārata & Rāmāyaṇa, it was like icing on the cake. While interacting with different people both personally and on internet, I noticed there are a lot of misconceptions & false information about the epics prevalent in public. So I thought, it would be the best time to address those misconceptions. while the epic buzz is still on.

The Rāmāyaṇa, the national epic of India and several other South East Asian Countries, is one of the largest ancient epics in world literature. Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa consists of nearly 24,000 verses . Traditionalists call it the Ādi-Kāvya(first poem). It is by far the most influential epic that India has ever produced.

I did a similar blog on Mahābhārata, For those interested please see: – Misconceptions about Mahābhārata

First and formost I would like the readers to know, that the primary source material for Ramanand Sagar’s show was Tulasīdāsa’s Rāmacaritamānasa not Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Contrary to what many in the north believe in Rāmacaritamānasa is just another vernacular version of the Rāmāyaṇa, no more valid than Kambha, Kṛttibāsi, Pampa Rāmāyaṇa-s, and cannot be considered in the same pedestal as Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

Rāma & Sītā’s wedding

As per the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, there was no Svayamavara of Sītā. Sītā was declared Vīryaśulka by Janaka. Janaka had announced when Sītā was still a child, that whoever lifts Śiva’s bow, he will wed his daughter to him. So over the years, whenever any noblemen or warrior used to visit Mithilā, Janaka used to let them try and lift the bow. So similarly when Viśvāmitra alongwith Rāma & Lakṣmaṇa, visted Mithilā, Viśvāmitra asked Janaka to show the mighty bow, Janaka asks Rāma to try and Rāma succeeded. There was no grand ceremony, where all the kings came, Rāma and Sītā didn’t meet in any garden before. Paraśurāma confronted Rāma after the wedding ceremony was over and the processsion was on its way returning to Ayodhyā, not immidiately after the bow was broken. Lakṣmaṇa didn’t have any interaction with Paraśurāma.

Sītā was not the daughter of Rāvaṇa

Sītā being daughter of Rāvaṇa, comes from the Jaina Rāmāyaṇa, not Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. See my article on Jain Ramayana

Ahalyā

Indra didn’t exactly trick Ahalyā in Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Ahalyā knew it was Indra disguised as her husband, Gautama, still she consummated with him. So it wasn’t rape, but adultery. She was not cursed to turn into stone. She was cursed to be unseen by beings, remain there for 1000 years, living only by air, not take any food. Ahalyā was peforming penances there, and was very much alive. When Rāma visited Gautama’s Hermitage, he went and touched her feet. For more detailed summary on the episode please see :- Did Indra rape Ahalyā?

Mantharā

The Sarasvatī sitting on the toungue of Mantharā , is nowhere mentioned in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

Urmilā

There’s nothing in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa about Urmilā sleeping continuosly for 14 years as a sacrifice for Lakṣmaṇa, so that he could stay awake safeguarding Rāma and Sītā.

Narration

There is no conversation between KākaBhuṣuṇḍi & Garuḍa, Bharadvāja & Yājñavalkya and Śiva & Pārvatī. There is no episode of Satī doubting Rāma either. The narrators of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa are Lava and Kuśa.

There is no Lakṣmaṇa-Rekhā in Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

Daśaratha had 350 wives in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, not just 3.

Abduction of Kauśalyā

The story about abduction of Kauśalyā by Rāvaṇa is in the Ānanda-Rāmāyaṇa, not Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. Rāvaṇa came to know about Rāma & Sītā from Śūrpaṇakhā only, for the first time.

Chaya Sītā

There are no 2 Sītās in the Rāmāyaṇa. The Sītā that was abducted & suffered, was real Sītā. This whole 2 Sītā thing renders whole point of Rāma going to Laṅkā to fight with Rāvaṇa as moot, in the context and plot setting of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

Śabarī

Śabarī’s portrayal is much different in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa as popularly believed to be. She is desrcribed to be a great Yoginī, Tapasvinī(ascetic) sage like wise women. She didn’t offer any lipped fruits to Rāma.

Sañjīvanī

Hanumāna brought the Sañjīvanī herb twice, not just once. First when Indrajīta fired brahmāstra, everyone including, Rāma & Lakṣmaṇa fainted. Jāmbavan advised Hanumāna to bring four important herbs from the Himālayas, viz. Mṛta-Sañjīvanī, Viśalya-karaṇī, Suvarṇa-karaṇī & Sandhānī

Second time when Rāvaṇa throws a spear at Lakṣmaṇa, penetrating his bossom. Lakṣmaṇa falls unconscious. Then Suṣeṇa, a Vānara expert in medicine, asks Hanumāna to bring 4 herbs, viz. Viśalya-karaṇī, Saṃjīva-karaṇī, Savarṇa-karaṇī & Saṃdhanī. Hanumāna didn’t fly over Ayodhyā and also never met Bharata on the way. It doesn’t make any sense, as Ayodhyā doesn’t fall on the straight line from Lanka to the Droṇagiri mountain, and he was instructed to return as soon as possible, why would he waste time when his dear Rāma was in pain back at Lanka.
And also Sañjīvanī was not the only herb that Hanumāna went looking for. Suṣeṇa here was a Vānara, in the army of Sugrīva, not a resident of Lanka.

Rāma-Setu

There is no mention of Vānara wrting the name of Rāma on the stones to make them float. As per the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, The bridge was constructed with the help of engineering expertise of the Vānara named, Nala, son of Viśvakarmā, by using wood logs, reeds and stones. Rāmāyaṇa specifically describes the trees and plants whose wood was used in constructing the bridge.

Vānaras

Vānaras were a species of monkey only. Nowhere the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, mentions them as a forest dwelling human tribes with monkey as their symbols. This Vānara being a human tribe with monkey as their embelem is in the Jaina-Rāmāyaṇa, not Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

I don’t understand , if people can accept an elephant god, a man-lion hybrid god, a wild boar lifting the earth, a dwarf scaling the sky, a mountain raising so high obstructing the path of sun, a talking crow, then why are these people so ashamed or hesitated by reason and logic, in accepting a monkey character.
Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa is full of animals doing such humanly activities: Jaṭāyu, Sampāti, Jāmbavan, etc.

Vānaras of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa were brutal, savage, gruesome, terrifying,  ferine, beastly creatures. Sītā had literally fainted out of terror on seeing Hanumāna for the first time. They used to fight with their bare hands, throwing rocks, boulders, trees or whatever object comes at their disposal, at their opponents, punching or slapping their way through the enemies in the battlefield, even using their untamed nails or teeths to injure the enemy.

Vānaras including Hanumāna are never mentioned to weild maces or ‘Gadā’ or any other weapons. They were by no means, like they are shown in the calendar art or TV serials. The calendar art Hanumāna that people worship or watch in popular media is like a Disney version of the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa Vānaras.

Hanumāna

Hanumāna in not mentioned as an incarnation of Śiva. He is just a character in the story. Sītā never gifted any necklace to Hanumāna. So no question of Hanumāna, tearing it piece by piece, and then tearing his chest apart to show Rāma inside him.

Hanumāna didn’t have any son

There is no mention of anyone named, Makardhvaja(son of Hanumāna) in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. I don’t know the source of this story, but I have read it in the Ānanda-Rāmāyaṇa, and i think it is also there in the Adbhuta-Rāmāyaṇa.

In the Cambodian, Thai and other South East Versions of Rāmāyaṇa, Hanumāna makes love with a mermaid princess named Suvarṇamatsya, who is daughter of Rāvaṇa, and knowingly has a son with her named, Macchanu. This relationship of Hanumāna with the mermaid princess, is much explored and celebrated in the South East Asian Countries. But as I said there is no such thing in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa.

There’s no AhiRāvaṇa either in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, so no Pañcamukha Hanumāna either. AhiRāvaṇa is there in the Ānanda-Rāmāyaṇa. This entire incident does not makes any sense in context of Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, and contradicts the plot of the epic.

Angada

The encounter of Angada with the Rākṣasas at Rāvaṇa’s court was much more ferrocious, than shown in TV serials. Angada didn’t coil his tail to make a seat for himself. Infruriated by Rāma’s message, Rāvaṇa orders to capture and kill Angada. Angada lets them capture him voluntarily. Then Angada jumps into air, making the Rākṣasas who had caught him fall on the ground. Then Angada breaks the ceiling of Rāvaṇa’s palace and flies away back to Rāma.

Rāvaṇa

Rāvaṇa is not at all eulogized in the Rāmāyaṇa, like he is done by some today. He is said to be a scholar of Vedas, but that’s it. He is described as ruthless cannibal, a dictator. He came to battlefield twice, once in the beginning when he got defeated by Rāma, and then ultimately at last. He didn’t have any Amṛta-kalaśa in his navel. Rāma shot a very powerful arrow with brahmāstra at his chest, to kill him. Rāma didn’t say Lakṣmaṇa to go and take any last minute knowledge from the dying Rāvaṇa. Rāvaṇa didn’t perform any ritual worsipping Durgā, before the final battle.
Rāvaṇa is probably glorified in the Purāṇas and some regional versions of Rāmāyaṇa. The Jaya-Vijaya story is also not mentioned anywhere in Rāmāyaṇa. It is found only in the Bhāgvat Purāṇa.

Indrajīta

Lakṣmaṇa slayed Indrajīta by beheading him. Indrajīta didn’t utter the name of Rāma while dying, so no question of question of Hanumāna and Angada praising him and his mother.

In the battle of Laṅkā, it were the Rākṣasas who fought a proper sophisticated battle using proper weapons and armaments, on their chariots against an horde of an army of wildlings.

Attire

Rāma, Sītā embarked on their journey to forest wearing rags made from tree bark, not the saffron clad as shown in TV serials and in all probabilities they used to have (some) animal skin with them for various purposes. Multiple instances of hunting are mentioned, and Rāma is shown to be quite knowledgeable on different kinds of meat from different kinds of animals.

Vālmīki

Vālmīki was not a dalit or Śūdra. He was a brahmin from the lineage of Bhṛgu, the same lineage in which Paraśurāma was born. Vālmīki is addressed as Bhārgava, which means the descendant of Bhṛgu, at various places in the canonical literature.

Ṛṣabhadeva and Bharata

Ṛṣabhadeva and his son, Emperor Bharata, were not the ancestors of Rāma. Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa mentions nothing about them. They are the ancestors of Rāma in Jaina-Purāṇas, where Ṛṣabha & Ikṣvāku are one and the same person. In Vaiṣṇava-Purāṇas, Ṛṣabhadeva is from Āgnīdhra dynasty, descended from Priyavrata, a son of Svāyambhuva Manu in the 1st Manvantra. Read : Jaina Rāmāyaṇas

Most of the misconceptions, I have addressed here about Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, are from Rāmacaritamānasa , otherwise i have mentioned the source.

Please follow us on Facebook and Instagram