Tuesday, 18 July 2017

Did Hanumana Really Burn Down Lanka - Part 1

In a previous post, I have talked about how the Vanaras in the Valmiki Ramayana were actually a human tribe, rather than a tribe of monkeys[8].  In that post, I have asserted that the tail of the Vanaras was actually their male sex organ (i.e. penis), since the word “लाङ्गूलम्”, which was translated by the translators as “tail”, also means “penis”. This is supported by the fact that only male Vanaras were described as having this लाङ्गूलम्, not the female Vanaras!
However, one objection that almost every person acquainted with Ramayana would raise is that if Hanumana was a normal human being, how would he have burned down Lanka? How can a normal human being sustain burning of their penis for such a long time to burn down an entire city? Also, how is it logical to burn down an entire city with a small flame? These are absolutely valid questions and to answer this question, I have dedicated two posts. In the first post, I will address the flaws in the claim that Hanumana burned down Lanka, using textual evidence. I will also provide an alternative to what actually happened in Lanka, following Hanumana's capture by Ravana. Then, in the second post, I will address some plausible issues with my claims, and attempt to resolve them, using textual evidence from Valmiki Ramayana.
Lets start off after Hanumana was captured by Indrajita and brought to Ravana's Sabha. Hanumana regains consciousness from Indrajita's brahmastra and gets angry that he was captured. He then sees the handsome Ravana seated in the Sabha, and the beauty of that sight diverts Hanumana's attention from the pain of his capture by Indrajita. Seeing Ravana, Hanumana was in awe of his beauty and prowess. Soon after this, Ravana's minister Prahasta asks Hanumana to give his introduction. So Hanaumana does, and introduces himself as a messenger of Rama. He also provokes Ravana by telling him that he should return Seetha, lest he will be killed by Rama. After this provocation, an enraged Ravana orders that Hanumana be killed:
स सौष्ठव उपेतम् अदीन वादिनः |
कपेः निशम्य अप्रतिमो अप्रियम् वचः |
दश आननः कोप विवृत्त लोचनः |
समादिशत् तस्य वधम् महाकपेः || ५-५१-४६
Hearing those unpleasant words endowed with extreme skillfulness and which were spoken without fear from Hanuma, that unequalled Ravana ordered for the killing of that Hanuma.
Sundara Kanda Section 51[1]
Vibhishana sees this and decides to save Hanumana's life. He talks Ravana out of killing Hanumana by saying that the killing of a “messenger” is prohibited according to the scriptures and other punishments can be used on a messenger, such as deformation of limbs, striking with a whip, shaving the head, and impressing marks on the body:
प्रसीद लङ्केश्वर राक्षसेन्द्र |
धर्मार्थयुक्तम् वचनम् शृणुष्व |
दूतानवध्यान् समयेषु राजन् |
सर्वेषु सर्वत्र वदन्ति सन्तः || ५-५२-१३
"O king of demons! O lord of Lanka! Be gracious enough. Hear my words endowed with righteousness and significance. O king! Sages say that messengers should not be killed at all places and at all times."
असंशयम् शत्रुः अयम् प्रवृद्धः |
कृतम् हि अनेन अप्रियम् अप्रमेयम् |
न दूत वध्याम् प्रवदन्ति सन्तो |
दूतस्य दृष्टा बहवो हि दण्डाः || ५-५२-१४
"There is no doubt that this enemy is arrogant. He has created an unlimited displeasure to us. But, sages do not talk about the killing of an envoy There are indeed severeal punishments, intended for an envoy."
वैरूप्याम् अन्गेषु कश अभिघातो |
मौण्ड्यम् तथा लक्ष्मण सम्निपातः |
एतान् हि दूते प्रवदन्ति दण्डान् |
वधः तु दूतस्य न नः श्रुतो अपि || ५-५२-१५
"Some of the punishments to an envoy are-deforming the body parts, striking with a whip, shaving the head and impressing marks on the body. Indeed, we have not heard at any time of killing a messenger."
Sundara Kanda Section 52[2]
After much convincing, Ravana agrees to give Hanumana another punishment. The new punishment given to Hanumana is to have his tail burned in the cross roads of Lanka, in the presence of all the civilians of Lanka. I had earlier in this post mentioned that the translation of "tail" is incorrect and should instead be "penis". I will come to that later on in this post. For now, I am retaining the translation of "tail" for the simplicity of the argument:
तस्य तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा दशग्रीवो महाबलः |
देश काल हितम् वाक्यम् भ्रातुः उत्तमम् अब्रवीत् || ५-५३-१
Hearing those words, which were aprropriate for that place and time, spoken by that high-souled Vibhishana, his brother, Ravana spoke the following words in reply:
सम्यग् उक्तम् हि भवता दूत वध्या विगर्हिता |
अवश्यम् तु वधात् अन्यः क्रियताम् अस्य निग्रहः || ५-५३-२
"You have spoken well indeed that killing of an envoy is forbidden. Another punishment other than killing needs be certainly meted out to him."
कपीनाम् किल लान्गूलम् इष्टम् भवति भूषणम् |
तत् अस्य दीप्यताम् शीघ्रम् तेन दग्धेन गच्छतु || ५-५३-३
"It is said that a tail is possibly a beloved ornament for the monkeys. Let his tail be burn immediately. Let him go with a burnt tail."
ततः पश्यन्तु इमम् दीनम् अन्ग वैरूप्य कर्शितम् |
समित्रा ज्ञातयः सर्वे बान्धवाः ससुहृज् जनाः || ५-५३-४
"Let all his relatives together with his friends, kinsmen and amicable persons then see him miserably injured with his deformed body part."
आज्ञापयत् राक्षस इन्द्रः पुरम् सर्वम् सचत्वरम् |
लान्गूलेन प्रदीप्तेन रक्षोभिः परिणीयताम् || ५-५३-५
Ravana ordered that let the monkey be carried around with his burning tail by the demons in the entire city around its cross-roads."
Sundara Kanda Section 53[3]
Keep these verses in mind as I will later refer back to them… However, the major point here, is that if we go by the translation of लाङ्गूलम् as "tail", Ravana ordered Hanumana’s tail to be burned. But this does not make any sense from a logical perspective as the purpose of Ravana changing his punishment from giving death to burning Hanumana's tail was to prevent him from acquiring the sin of murdering a messenger. Did Ravana not know that by burning a body part, it would lead to the death of the individual? There is clearly a loophole here in the text. I will refer to this later on… But lets just continue with the flow of the text for now…
The new punishment that Ravana pronounces is that Hanumana be carried to the crossroads of Lanka, and his tail be burned then, in the midst of all the civilians. Ravana’s guards follow the order, and take him to the crossroads. Hanumana, however, allows them to do so, as he wants to see the specifications of the fort of Lanka, which could not have been seen earlier when he entered Lanka, as his entry into Lanka was made at night time, in the dark. To allow for himself to note the specifications of the Lanka fort in detail, he would have needed to reach the exit of the Lanka fort. So he played along with the guards and went willingly with them all across Lanka:
रात्रौ न हि सुदृष्टा मे दुर्ग कर्म विधानतः |
अवश्यम् एव द्रष्टव्या मया लन्का निशा क्षये || ५-५३-१५
"Lanka was not indeed observed well as to the particulars of specifications of the fort, when it was seen by me during the night. Surely, it is to be seen by me during the day-time."
कामम् बन्धैः च मे भूयः पुच्छस्य उद्दीपनेन च |
पीडाम् कुर्वन्तु रक्षांसि न मे अस्ति मनसः श्रमः || ५-५३-१६
"Let the demons tie me down of again and torment me as they wish, by burning my tail. There will be no travail to my mind."
ततः ते सम्वृत आकारम् सत्त्ववन्तम् महाकपिम् |
परिगृह्य ययुः हृष्टा राक्षसाः कपि कुन्जरम् || ५-५३-१७
Then, those delighted demons went, seizing Hanuma, who concealed all types of his feelings, who was strong and foremost among monkeys.
शन्ख भेरी निनादैः तैः घोषयन्तः स्व कर्मभिः |
राक्षसाः क्रूर कर्माणः चारयन्ति स्म ताम् पुरीम् || ५-५३-१८
Sounding couches and kettle-drums and proclaining the acts of Hanuma like his damaging of the pleasure-garden, the demons performing terrible deeds, dragged Hanuma through out that city.
अन्वीयमानो रक्षोभिर्ययौ सुखमरिंदमः |
हनुमान् चारयामास राक्षसानाम् महापुरीम् || ५-५३-१९
Accompanied by demons, Hanuma the annihilator of enemies, went happily and roamed about in that great city of demons.
अथ अपश्यत् विमानानि विचित्राणि महाकपिः |
सम्वृतान् भूमि भागान् च सुविभक्तान् च चत्वरान् || ५-५३-२०
Then, Hanuma saw some wonderful house some wrapped up plots of land and well parted cross ways.
वीथीश्च गृहसम्बाधाः कपिः शृङ्गटकानि च |
तथा रथ्योपरथ्याश्च तथैव गृहकान्तरान् || ५-५३-२१
गृहांश्च मेघसम्काशान् ददर्श पवनात्मजः |
Hanuma, the son of wind-god, saw streets congested with dwellings, places where several roads meet, high-ways as also approach-roads, small inner apartments and palaces appearing in multitudes, like clouds.
Sundara Kanda Section 53[4]
Upon reaching the gate of Lanka's fort, Hanumana took a rod and killed the guards that were parading him across the city. This could have been done easily, as the gate of the fort was relatively secluded from the rest of the demons:
पुर द्वारम् ततः श्रीमान् शैल शृन्गम् इव उन्नतम् || ५-५३-४०
विभक्त रक्षः सम्बाधम् आससाद अनिल आत्मजः |
Then, the glorious Hanuma like a mountain-peak, approached the city-gate, which was looking high and stood secluded from the crowds of demons.
स भूत्वा शैल सम्काशः क्षणेन पुनः आत्मवान् || ५-५३-४१
ह्रस्वताम् परमाम् प्राप्तो बन्धनानि अवशातयत् |
That prudent Hanuma assumed the form of a mountain and immediately within a moment, assumed an exceedingly short form, thus becoming free from his tethers.
विमुक्तः च अभवत् श्रीमान् पुनः पर्वत सम्निभः || ५-५३-४२
वीक्षमाणः च ददृशे परिघम् तोरण आश्रितम् |
The glorious Hanuma, having been free from his bonds, again assumed the form equal to a mountain and while looking around, found and iron rod belonging to the arched door-way.
स तम् गृह्य महाबाहुः काल आयस परिष्कृतम् || ५-५३-४३
रक्षिणः तान् पुनः सर्वान् सूदयामास मारुतिः |
That long-armed Hanuma, again taking that rod made of iron, killed all those guards.
Sundara Kanda Section 53[5]
So as we can see from the text above, Hanumana reaches the gate of Lanka’s fort, which had demons in scarcity, and then kills the guards. So his purpose was accomplished. He wanted to see the specifications of the fort, which he saw. So, it would be logical that he would then leave Lanka and cross the ocean, now that his plan of noting the specifications of the Lanka fort was accomplished.
But NO. The text then has verses in the next 3 sections (Sundara Kanda Sections 54-56) where Hanumana does the following:
  1. Re-enters Lanka and burns down the buildings. The fire is described as so great that it stretches from Southern Lanka, where Seetha was held captive, to Northern Lanka.
  2. This generates worry in Hanumana whether Seetha is still alive. So Hanumana goes to Southern Lanka to check on her. He sees that she is alive, and then departs from Lanka.
There are a few problems with this. When Hanumana’s plan was to just see Lanka’s fort specifications, which he successfully did, why would he risk being captured again by going and engaging in a war with the demons? He had already measured the prowess of the warriors in Ravana’s army when he destroyed the Ashoka Grove and provoked the warrior in Ravana’s army to attack him. There was no need to attack the army again. Furthermore, if there was a burning Vanara in the sky, wouldn’t it have been an easy target for Lanka’s best warriors to shoot down Hanumana with his arrows? Indrajit and Ravana were both better warriors than Hanumana. Shooting arrows, with the intention of killing, at a Vanara leaping in the air would not be hard for them, right? But we do not hear of any of Ravana’s main warriors at all, when Hanumana was burning down Lanka. Where were they then? Why did they not chase down Hanumana? Why would they let an enemy easily burn down Lanka, just like that? What about the guards and police patrol in the city of Lanka. What were they doing then? As you can see, there are many loopholes in this story.
Yet another loophole is that if the fire was raging so much that it burned down everything from Southern to Northern Lanka, why were the Rakshasiis in the Ashoka Grove not dead? Why did the fire not kill Trijata? We all know of Trijata’s speech to Seetha in Yuddha Kanda, when she pacified Seetha who thought her husband Rama was dead from Indrajita's arrows, right? So, Trijata escaped the fire in Lanka. How would this be possible, considering its deadly nature, as described in Sundara Kanda Sections 54–56?
Furthermore, if the city of Lanka was burned down, it would be in ashes by the time Rama and Lakshmana reached it. But much to the contrary, when the two descendants of Ikshvaku reached the city, it was initially described by them to be a very beautiful city:
निविष्टा तत्र शिखरे लन्का रावण पालिता || ६-३९-२०
दशयोजनविस्तीर्णा विंशद्योजनमायता |
Lanka, ruled by Ravana, with a breadth of eighty mile and a length of one hundred sixty miles, was located on the apex of the mountain there.
सा पुरी गोपुरैर् उच्चैः पाण्डुर अम्बुद सम्निभैः |
कान्चनेन च सालेन राजतेन च शोभिता || ६-३९-२१
The city of Lanka looked beautiful with its towering City-gates resembling white clouds as well as with golden and silver ramparts.
प्रासादैश् च विमानैश् च लन्का परम भूषिता |
घनैर् इव आतप अपाये मध्यमम् वैष्णवम् पदम् || ६-३९-२२
The city of Lanka, greatly adorned by palaces and seven storied mansions, looked like the sky with clouds at the end of a summer and as a region of Vishnu between earth and heaven.
तस्याम् स्तम्भ सहस्रेण प्रासादः समलम्कृतः |
कैलास शिखर आकारो दृश्यते खम् इव उल्लिखन् || ६-३९-२३
चैत्यः स राक्षस इन्द्रस्य बभूव पुर भूषणम् |
शतेन रक्षसाम् नित्यम् यः समग्रेण रक्ष्यते || ६-३९-२४
A palace, duly graced with a thousand pillars, which looked like a peak of Mount Kailasa was three in the City of Lanka, which was always the City of Lanka, which was always protected by a complete army of demons. The palace seemed to be scraping the skies and was to be seen as an ornament to the City of Ravana.
मनोज्ञाम् काञ्चनवतीम् सर्वतैरुपशोभिताम् |
नानाधातुविचित्रैश्च उद्यानैरुपशोभिताम् || ६-३९-२५
नानाविहगसम्घष्टाम् नानामृगनिषेविताम् |
नानाकुसुमसंपन्नाम् नानाराक्षससेविताम् || ६-३९-२६
ताम् समृद्धाम् समृद्ध अर्थो लक्ष्मीवाम्ल् लक्ष्मण अग्रजः |
रावणस्य पुरीम् रामो ददर्श सह वानरैः || ६-३९-२७
The glorious Rama the elder brother of Lakshmana along with monkeys saw that charming golden city of Ravana, graced with mountains picturesque with various minerals, splendid with gardens reechoing with songs of birds of every kind, frequented by varieties of deer, richly endowed with various kinds of flowers, inhabited by demons of every degree and duly flourishing, having increased its wealth.
ताम् महागृहसम्बाधां दृष्ट्वा लक्ष्मणपूर्वजः |
नगरीं त्रिदिवप्रख्यां विस्मयं प्राप वीर्यवान् ६-३९-२८
Beholding that City, which looks like heaven and crammed with huge palaces, the valiant Rama the elder brother of Lakshmana was seized with astonishment.
ताम् रत्न पूर्णाम् बहु सम्विधानाम् |
प्रासाद मालाभिर् अलम्कृताम् च |
पुरीम् महा यन्त्र कवाट मुख्याम् |
ददर्श रामो महता बलेन || ६-३९-२९
Rama with his great army saw that City, full of precious gems, having all kinds of facilities, adorned with rows of mansions, having excellent doors with huge mechanical appliances and with a large armed forces protecting the City.
Yuddha Kanda Section 39[6]
Does this look like the description of a city burned down to ashes? No, right? It looks like Lanka was a very prosperous city when Rama and Lakshmana arrived to conquer it. There is no way that it could have been burned down to ashes a while back by Hanumana. Had the city of Lanka actually been burned down, it would many taken many decades to repair it and bring it back to its former glory. We have to remember that this was an ancient society, with less advancements compared to the modern society we have today! So, it logically follows that the repair of the entire city would have taken much, much longer than it would have taken today. It would have likely taken a minimum of 40-50 years for a proper repairment of the city, or possibly even longer. Since Ravana did not have this kind of time available between Hanumana's arrival in Lanka and Rama's attack on Lanka, it seems like the burning of Lanka was a later addition to the Ramayana. Sundara Kanda Sections 54-56 were likely added in the epic by pro-Hanumana poets, that wanted to exaggerate Hanumana's prowess, in the period where people started to worship him as a god.
What likely happened is that after reaching the gates of Lanka’s fort, Hanumana examined the specifications of the fort, in case he needed to report it to Rama. After doing that, Hanumana killed the guards employed by Ravana and then fled from the city. This is supported by Hanumana’s speech to Rama, after returning to the Kishkindha Forest and telling the latter that he found Seetha in Lanka:
ते मया सम्क्रमा भग्नाः परिखाः च अवपूरिताः |
दग्धा च नगरी लंका प्राकाराः च अवसादिताः || ६-३-२९
"Those bridges were broken by me and the moats were filled up (with the wreckage). The city of Lanka was tormented by me and the defensive walls were pulled down.
अङ्गदो द्विविदो मैन्दो जाम्बवान् पनसो नलः || ६-३-३१
नीलः सेना पतिः चैव बल शेषेण किम् तव |
प्लवमाना हि गत्वा ताम् रावणस्य महापुरीम् || ६-३-३२
सप्रकाराम् सभवनाम् आनयिष्यन्ति मैथिलीम् |
"Oh, Rama! What is the use for the rest of the forces to you? Angada, Divida, Mainda, Jambavan, Panasa, Anala and Nila the commander-in-chief alone, by reaching that great city of Ravana leaping and storming Lanka with its protective walls and buildings, will recover Seetha."
Yuddha Kanda Section 3[7]
In the first verse, Hanumana tells Rama that the defensive walls were pulled down and that he tormented the city. He does not give any details on the burning of Lanka. He then says, in the next two verses, that the Vanara army will storm the buildings of Lanka. However, in Sundara Kanda, it says the buildings in Lanka were burned by Hanumana. Had Hanumana actually burned those buildings, there would be no need to storm them when attacking Lanka, as they would have just been a pile of ashes, with nil defences left in them. This is yet another piece of evidence that the city was not burned by Hanumana. Instead, Hanumana says that the defensive walls, along with the bridges and moats were destroyed. This destruction makes sense with the flow of events, and likely happened after Hanumana killed his guards. After killing the guards, Hanumana probably spent some time to destroy the exterior walls of the Lanka fort, along with the bridges and moats, and then fled from the city of Lanka back towards the Vindhya Mountain range, where he met his fellow Vanaras.
This shows that Sundara Kanda Sections 54–56 are later interpolations, and that Lanka was not actually burned.
However, we are left at the same problem as earlier! If Hanumana’s tail was not physically burned, then what was the punishment meted out to him by Ravana? For that, I would advise everyone to take a look at a blog post[8] I wrote earlier, that describes that the Vanaras were actually humans and not monkeys. Their sanskrit word “लाङ्गूलम्” was translated by the translators as “tail”, but it also means “penis”. The translation of “penis” makes more sense, as only the male Vanaras were described as having this लाङ्गूलम्. There is no description of any लाङ्गूलम् for the female Vanaras, like Tara, in the Ramayana.
So, that being said, lets see one of the verses that I earlier mentioned, when Ravana was giving punishment to Hanumana:
"Let all his relatives together with his friends, kinsmen and amicable persons then see him miserably injured with his deformed body part."
Sundara Kanda Section 53[9]
As we can see from the text above, Ravana wanted to “deform” the limbs of Hanumana. If we consider लाङ्गूलम् as being Hanumana’s penis, instead of his tail, the punishment starts to make some more sense. Ravana wanted to deform that limb of Hanumana. In other words, as was the practice in many ancient societies[10], he wanted the penis of Hanumana to be physically severed as a punishment to Hanumana. However, the question arises of why Ravana wanted to severe the penis of Hanumana. Why could he have not severed Hanumana's arms, or legs? My answer to this will be given in more detail in the next post. However, for now, keep in mind that the "penis" symbolizes prowess, and virility. Ravana wanted to conquer this prowess and virility of Hanumana by severing his penis. That is also why Hanumana got enraged at hearing of his new punishment that was decided by Ravana. More details about this decision of Ravana will be given in the Part 2 of "Did Hanumana Really Burn Down Lanka".
From the details mentioned in this post, a general conclusion can be made regarding what transpired from the point of Hanumana being captured by Indrajita to him leaving Lanka. The major events are summarized in point form below:
  1. Indrajita captures Hanumana by making him unconscious using his brahmastra, and then brings Hanumana to Ravana's Sabha. Upon regaining consciousness, Hanumana is enraged at his capture.
  2. Ravana's minister Prahasta asks Hanumana about the cause for the destruction he caused in Lanka, and his identity. Hanumana gives his identity and tells Ravana to return Seetha. An enraged Ravana gives death penalty to Hanumana.
  3. Vibhishana tells Ravana that a messenger should not be slain, hence Ravana changes Hanumana's punishment to being paraded through the crossroads in Lanka, and then having his penis severed, and thrown out of Lanka.
  4. Hanumana initially gets enraged at hearing this, but decides to play along and willingly goes with the guards all across Lanka. He planned that when he is taken to the gate of the Lanka fort, he will inspect it for details, then kill the guards and exit Lanka.
  5. Hanumana does just that. Upon reaching the gate of the Lanka fort, he kills off the guards. Then he causes some damage to the exterior walls of the Lanka fort, the moats, and the bridges. Note that the guards would have just severed Hanumana's penis, and then thrown him out of the entrance of Lanka. But prior to them being able to take action, Hanumana killed them off.
  6. After doing all this damage, he quickly escapes from Lanka and swims the ocean, back to the Vindhya Mountain range where he meets his fellow Vanaras and tells them about his exploits in Lanka. He was able to escape from the entrance of the fort as there were very few demon guards in the area. It was a relatively secluded place.
That concludes Part 1 of the two part series, Did Hanumana Really Burn Down Lanka. Part 2 of this two part series can be read here.
                  Image result for hanuman lanka



  1. You write very very well. I have been following and checking on your blog regularly for the past few months. I am very impressed by your last 2 blog articles (burning down Lanka, Vanaras were humans).

    This blog article makes a lot of sense to me. Evidence is presented well in your writing, conclusions are drawn correctly and logically, some very interesting facts have been revealed that runs counter to what we are told about Ramayana in general. I still remember watching Ramananda Sagar's Ramayana serial on our B&W Sony TV in a lower middle class environment in Gujarat. It has always bugged me that we are not told the truth about Ramayana.

    I have been inspired by your articles and have been studying valmikiramayan.net website for many sections of the poem.

    1. Thank you for your kind words. Ever since I started reading Ramayana, I stopped watching TV shows due to lies they spread. For example, in Ramananda Sagar Ramayana, Shurpanakha saw Seetha, and called her a shudra. This is totally opposite to what happened in Ramayana. The Rakshasas never discriminated against others in their kingdom or out of their kingdom. You never see Ravana hating Rama because he was a Vedic Aryan. The anger just lies from the fact that he is a political enemy of Ravana. Furthermore, the Rakshasas gave more freedom to their women. We see Shurpanakha walking isolated in the Dandaka Forest, looking for a husband, when she first saw Rama. To see a Vedic Aryan woman doing the same is just a dream... The Vedic Aryans limited the freedom their women had. Back to my main point... Shurpanakha never called Seetha a sudra. But on the contrary, Rama called Viraadha (a member of the Rakshasa tribe) a shudra, thereby showing his contempt for sudras.

      It is nice to hear that my articles have inspired you to do your own research regarding Ramayana. That was the purpose of creating this blog. There are many stories in both epics that remain buried in them, and nobody talks about them. I want to bring them to light.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. After studying your past blog articles and many sections on valmikiramayan.net, I have drawn some conclusions about the following topics that are of interest to me. I would love to hear from you and get your thoughts.

    1) Sita's clothing at the time of departure from Ayodhya for the jungles, as well as and especially her attire during the kidnapping and in Lanka. I have developed some conclusions about it that are in stark contrast to what 99% of the people think.

    2) Sita's relationship with Lakshaman, Ravan, Hanuman. What was her purpose in having or wanting to have a relationship with these 3.

    3) Who was/were the biological father(s) of Luv and Kush, and when were they conceived.

    My understanding of Ramayana has been completely turned around over the past few months by reading your blog articles and studying Ramayana on my own. It is terrible that society teaches us BS, which is what I was told since childhood, truly hate the BS.

    1. Here are my views on those points:

      1) In Ayodhya Kanda, it is mentioned that she was wearing bark clothing, with silk clothing underneath. The extent to which the clothing covered her body is not mentioned. In Aranya Kanda, when she is in exile, she is described as wearing silk garments and ornaments. This suggests that she discarded her bark clothing once she reached the forest. It also suggests that she brought ornaments with her to exile (i.e. I think in Ayodhya Dashratha gave her ornaments to take to exile, if I am not mistaken)... When Aranya sees Seetha for the first time, he describes in detail her breasts, nipples, waists etc, thereby suggesting that her upper body was not covered. He also describes her thighs as being "elephant like", suggesting that he was able to see them in enough detail. So I would suggest that Seetha's top was not covered, and as for her bottom, she wore a silk cloth that was transparent! We see sculptures of such women wearing transparent clothing on their lower bodies in Ellora Caves...

      See the picture in the post I have linked below (the picture is about Ravana kidnapping Seetha, from 100 BCE, note her clothing):


      2) Lakshmana, she was probably attracted to. Same with Hanumana (my part 2 of burning of lanka post will talk about that in detail). As for Ravana, she was also attracted to him. In fact, she invites him into her hut after realizing that he was a pseudo brahmin. Valmiki alludes that she invited him into her hut due to his handsome appearance (saumya darshanam).

      3) I believe that Bala and Uttara Kanda are later additions, so I would say that Luva/Kusha never existed. But, if we are to consider Uttara Kanda authentic, then I would say Ravana because the time between Hanumana finding Seetha in Lanka and the war on Lanka was more than 1-2 months!

  4. A good analysis iam able to connect many dots Vanaras in Valmiki Ramayana were actually a Human Tribe, and not a tribe of Monkeys the tail of the Vanaras was actually their male sex organ .in temples I have noticed hanuman carrying Mace looks eerily similar to penis .my question who converted hanuman into monkey god?

    1. Nagesh3,

      My guess would be that many generations after the Ramayana was written, the readers viewed the Ramayana as a religious text, as opposed to a political text, which it was originally intended to be as. So, they simply ignored the political propaganda in the text and took some of the statements literally. As a result, Vanaras were made monkeys, and Rakshasas were made demons. This change likely started after the demise of Kautilya and the the Mauryan Empire. Kautilya's Arthashatra was heavily based on the political propaganda in the Mahabharatha and Ramayana. That is why the Mauryan Empire was successful as long as they followed his advice...

  5. In some parts of south India Hanuman is worshipped along with his wife Suvarchala Devi(who was the daughter of Surya the Sun god) why was Hanuman turned into Brahmachari?

    1. Nagesh3,

      I think he was turned into a brahmachari by the later people who could not handle a bhakta of Rama having a married life. They expected Hanumana to have no identity other than a bhakta. But Valmiki Ramayana does not support this. According to Valmiki Ramayana, Hanumana had sex with women. I will talk about that in part 2 of this series. Hanumana even had a sensual relationship with Rama as well. Please read this post where I talk about it:


      Although some of Hanumana's devotion towards Rama was a product of love (especially of a sensual nature), he was extremely scared of Rama's wrath. That was also a reason why he was devoted to Rama.

  6. I think there was lot of sanitation done during the Muslim rule in India and during the British rule in India. Some of it was done for good reason. The white race or the Christian religion, at least a few centuries ago, is/was very scared of sex, they are/were never comfortable with it; but, such attitudes still prevail in India.

    My guess is - Muslim rulers were atrocious and very sexual in nature, so lot of changes were made in the Ramayan and other scriptures by the Hindus during that time to protect the Hindus, especially women, from Muslim rulers.

    Conversely, British were not comfortable with sex or scant clothing, so they changed things in the other direction.

    I am only beginning to realize all this and am in utter shock, but feel fortunate that I no longer blindly follow Hinduism as it exists today, what exists today in the name of Hinduism is a big hot pile of BS that stinks badly.

    Many thanks to Milin Patel.

    1. Rohit Shah,

      I agree with you. The Mughal rulers were quite sexual in nature. A while back, I came across some of their picture, which are quite sexually explicit (shown in video below):


      Todays Hinduism is a product of the Victorian period. But most Hindus do not realize that and take offense when you show them evidence that Hindus were quite sexual in the past. There is a great deal of "desexualization" in the perception of the epics going on today.

  7. Eagerly awaiting the part II of this blog article. Thank you.

    1. Thanks for your interest. I am currently working of Part 2 and it is very long. Should be posted in about 2 days...

  8. hi milind

    I want to ask was Hanuman really a avatar of lord shiva?

    1. Hi,

      According to Valmiki Ramayana, Hanumana was not an avatar of Lord Shiva. It also does not make sense because Ravana was a bhakta of Shiva. Why would Shiva support Rama over his own bhakta Ravana? Possibly, some Puranas may have said that Hanumana was an avatara of Shiva... But since the Puranas are written at least 6-7 centuries after the Ramayana, they are not really authentic for Ramayana based events... So, in short, I would say no.

  9. I have lot question regarding origin of Hanuman I will post few theories that are popular its long list plz don't mind

    (1) Hanuman was born to the vanaras. His mother Anjana was an apsara who was born on earth due to a curse. She was redeemed from this curse on her giving birth to a son.

    (2) The Valmiki Ramayana states that his father Kesari was the son of Brihaspati and that Kesari also fought on Rama’s side in the war against Ravana. Anjana and Kesari performed intense prayers to Shiva to get a child. Pleased with their devotion, Shiva granted them the boon they sought.Hanuman, in another interpretation, is the incarnation or reflection of Shiva himself.

    (3)Once Siva and Parvati were playing in Kailash, and they saw a monkey. Lord Siva, by looking at this monkey, he also took the form of a monkey. Parvati also took the form of a monkey, and they played. During that time, Lord Siva gave Parvati a conception. Then immediately she became Parvati again and said, “I’m not going to give birth to a monkey

    (4) Brahma created Ahalya devi ... Indra liked her and she liked him too... Sage Gautama liked her also...
    Swayamvara was announced...the person who circumambulates the three worlds would win her hand... Indra went away to finish the task on his mount Airavata, the celestial elephant...
    But Sage Gautama went home and went around the cow Surabhi... As a cow is said to contain all the worlds in itself, by that logic, Gautama won the Swayamvara ...

    Ahalya Devi in time, had a daughter who was named Anjana...

    Indra seduced her, she had a son with him... Vali

    Anjana knew what was happening with her mother and Indra...

    One day, Sage Gautama was carrying Vali in his arms and making Anjana walk...her feet were burning because of the sun...so she muttered, you are carrying someone elses child, but your own, you are making her walk...

    He heard it and by his divine vision saw what happened... He cursed Ahalya to become a rock and that her son would become a Vanara...
    Ahalya cursed Anjana that when she will have a son, he will also be a Vanara...
    So, Anjana decided not to marry at all and wanted to live a solitary life

    The gods wanted Hanuman to be born... so what they did, they said to her "Everyday Vayu will bring you food.. you should eat whatever he places in your palms without looking"... so this became a routine for her...

    Lord Vishnu assumed the Mohini Avatar and after the work of distributing the nectar was finished, He went and seduced Shiva in the form of Mohini ... Goddess Kali gave Vishnu her beauty... so Shiva was attracted and for a second, his power became separated from him... Vayu quickly drove it into the hands of Anjana and she ate it and Hanuman was born...

    So Shiva's power brought by Vayu to Anjana devi created Hanuman...

    Ahalya was delivered from the curse by the touch of Lord Rama's feet according to the boon given by Gautama when she repented...

    (5) According to Shiva Mahapuran, while distributing the amrit among the Gods and Demons, seeing the Mohini roop of Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva got attracted and ejaculated. The Saptrishis collected it in some leafs.

    (6)In Ramayan, it was Pavan Dev who impregnated Anjana by planting into her womb a son who would be as swift as him and unique in valor, wisdom and might (this was done without injuring her chastity, simply by embracing her) and thus she gave birth to Hanuman.Later in Puranas we get to know that Pavan Dev actually transferred the virya (semen/seed) of Shiva in her womb.
    At the appropriate time, the saptrishis put it into Vanarraj Kesari’s wife Anjani’s stomach through her ears. Because of this Lord Hanuman was born.

    1. The story of Lord Shiva's union with Mohini and origination of Hanuman seems demeaning to both Lord Vishnu and Shiva as well. it is a same story of origin of Ayyapa

    2. Here are my thoughts on the points you raised:

      1), 6) - Anjana was a vanara who was actually the apsara Punjikisthala cursed to be born on Earth. Anjana's father was Kunjara. One day, Anjana was roaming on the mountain peaks. Vayu saw her, and was attracted to her. So her disrobed her and embraced her (i.e. had sexual intercourse). This was rape since Anjana lashes out at Vayu for disrupting her chastity. She was a lesbian devoted to a single female, and the sex disrupted that. Embrace is often used in the epics to suggest sex. For example, Parashara just embraced Satyavati and Vyasa was born... Anjana gave birth to Hanumana away from society, in a cave... Probably because she was ashamed at the fact that she was raped by Vayu...

      The entire story is mentioned in Kishkindha Kanda Section 66:


      2) This is not in Valmiki Ramayana. Details about Kesari are not mentioned. Nor did they ask for Hanumana to Shiva. Hanumana was a product of an unplanned rape.

      3) I am not aware of this story. It is probably a story from a purana. But thanks for shedding light on this.

      4) Shiva had no role in Hanumana's birth. Nor was Indra the son of Ahalya. Also, Anjana did marry. The person who cursed her is not mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana.

      5) I don't see the story as demeaning. There are numerous instances of Rshis even losing control after seeing beautiful females. As for Hanumana, his mother was raped by Vayu, and he was a product of this rape.

  10. DID HANUMAN FIGHT LORD SHIVA ? one of the strangest story I have ever heard


    1. In Valmiki Ramayana there was no Shiva-Hanumana fight. By the way, I consider Uttara Kanda a later addition to the epic in its entirety!

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.


    1. First I would like to mention that Bala Kanda and Uttara Kanda are interpolations in their entirety as pointed out by many scholars. That being said, in the other 5 kandas of Valmiki Ramayana, there is no mention of the birth of Vali. But there are passages where he is called the son of Indra (Indra amsha). I believe that calling him a son of Indra was just a figure of speech to show his bravery.

      In Mahabharatha, Arjuna was an Indra amsha and Karna a Surya amsha. In Ramayana, Vali was an Indra amsha and Sugriva a Surya amsha. Just like how the more powerful, fair generous Arjuna defeated the deceitful Karna, so did Vali defeat Sugriva in fair fight. So, I don't think Vali was a biological son of Indra. Calling Indra his father was just a figure of speech to liken Indra's prowess to Vali. There are passages in Mahabharatha where the son (Vali) is said to be a portion of the father (Indra, in this case)... So Ahalya was not the mother.

      If you consider Bala Kanda a part of the original epic (which I don't BTW), then Ahalya was not raped. She had consensual sex with Indra and then after the sex asked him to leave the hermitage. Gautama caught them red handed just as Indra was about to leave the hermitage. Gautama cursed Indra to be "testicle-less" and Ahalya to be invisible and to only live on air, not food, in this invisible state. She was never transformed into stone. Then, right when Rama entered the hermitage, Ahalya gained the human form again!

  13. what is ur opnion on vali and sugreeva?

    is shri Rama justified in shooting vali from behind?

    According to Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, Vali had always been wearing a lustrous necklace, given by his father Lord Indra, on his neck.on wearing that lustrous necklace, half of his opponent’s energy will come over to him

    1. I think Vali was a great king and warrior, and loved his brother Sugriva. But Sugriva on the other hand was a tyrant, was prone to lots of anger. For example, when sending the Vanaras off to search for Seetha, he tells them if they return without bringing any news of Seetha, he will kill them. Quite a cruel person, I would say. He also put a boulder up to the opening of the cave Vali was fighting so that Vali would not exit the cave, thereby allowing him to obtain the kingdom and Vali's beautiful wife Tara!

      I did not find this necklace story in Valmiki Ramayana.

      I don't mind Rama killing Vali when Vali was not looking at him because at times deceit needs to be applied to destroy a more powerful enemy... My problem is just with the way Rama justifies the act. He calls Vali an animal (i.e. monkey) and then reasons that hunters use deceit to trap and kill animals, so there was nothing wrong in him being a hunter and doing the same to Vali, an animal. It just shows the lack of respect he had for his Vanara allies. He essentially called them animals and placed them at an inferior position to him...

  14. why Sri Hanuma, having so many capabilities, remained as a silent spectator, when Vali banished Sugreeva and grabbed Ruma, the wife of Sugreeva. Could not he stop Vali with his might?

    1. One answer is that he knew what Sugriva did was wrong, hence did not want to intervene. He knew Sugriva was an evil man, from his later speech in Kishkindha Kanda and Sundara Kanda. Another, and more probable reason was that he was much inferior as a warrior to Vali. Vali was an extremely powerful warrior, and Hanumana would not have been able to match his prowess...

    Going by simple technical mythology King Vali should be stronger in a straight fight because he had the boon that when faced with an opponent he will absorb half his power. It is said that the boon was so powerful that even Lord Rama decided to strike him from behind a tree rather than face him head-on. His power was great enough to even defeat and humiliate Ravana.

    1. The necklace boon story is not in the actual text of Valmiki Ramayana. Ravana's defeat by Vali is in Uttara Kanda, and hence is a later addition to the epic. Rama had to hide behind a tree and shoot an arrow at Vali. The obvious reason for this was that he realized that he knew he was inferior as a warrior and could not fight Vali in a fair fight!

      My money would go on Vali for this fight!

      Rama is a much overrated warrior. Please take a look at this post:


  16. since Hanuman is known as one of the saptha chiranjeeve(7 IMMORTALS) why didn't hanuman fight with Ravana directly and save sita devi instead of wating for shri rama to come and rescue?

    1. The reason for that is that he was scared of Ravana. When Hanumana sees Ravana for the first time sleeping, he gets scared of the sleeping Ravana and backs off from the area in Ravana's harem where Ravana was sleeping:

      पीत्वा अपि उपरतम् च अपि ददर्श स महा कपिः |
      भास्करे शयने वीरम् प्रसुप्तम् राक्षस अधिपम् || ५-१०-११

      That great Hanuma saw the gallant king of rakshasas in sleep on a shining couch resting after drinking.

      निह्श्वसन्तम् यथा नागम् रावणम् वानर उत्तमः |
      आसाद्य परम उद्विग्नः सो अपासर्पत् सुभीतवत् || ५-१०-१२

      That Hanuma, best among Vanaras neared Ravana, became very gloomy and moved away with great dread, as though from a hissing serpent.

      Also, once Hanumana is captured by Ravana and presented in his Sabha, Hanumana sees Ravana and alludes about his fear towards Ravana by thinking the following:

      अहो रूपम् अहो धैर्यम् अहो सत्त्वम् अहो द्युतिः |
      अहो राक्षस राजस्य सर्व लक्षण युक्तता || ५-४९-१७

      "What figure, what courage, what strength, what splendor and what amalgam of auspicious marks, alas, this king of demons has!"

      यदि अधर्मो न बलवान् स्यात् अयम् राक्षस ईश्वरः |
      स्यात् अयम् सुर लोकस्य सशक्रस्य अपि रक्षिता || ५-४९-१८

      "Had this lord of demons perhaps not strong in unrighteousness, he would have been a protector of even the world of celestials together with Indra the lord of celestials."

      अस्य क्रूरैर्नृशम् सैश्च कर्मभिर्लोककुत्सितैः |
      सर्वे बिभ्यति खल्वस्माल्लोकाः सामरदानवाः || ५-४९-१९
      अयम् ह्युत्सह्ते क्रुद्धः कर्तुमेकार्णवम् जगत् |

      "By his cruel and violent acts despised by the world, all people including gods and demons indeed remain frightened of him. If enraged he is indeed capable to turn the entire world into a single ocean."

      So, it was pure fear of Ravana that he did not fight against him then. But in the actual war, he did have one fight with Ravana. Ravana rendered him too exhausted to continue the fight after giving him a mere two punches... So, Hanumana was no match for Ravana when it came to prowess... I would say Hanumana's strength lies in his intelligence, and his ability as a politician and strategy maker!

  17. Who is Shatanand Ravan? Does any such character exist in Ramayana?
    according to a Adbhuta Ramayana Ravana (the villain of Ramayana) had three forms. One lives in the skies. One on earth and the other in the nether world. ie Dashakantha Ravana (10 heads) Ahiravan(a) or Mahiravan ,shata khantha ravana (100 heads) He is said to be elder brother of Raavan himself.

    In the Krittivasi Ramayan, , Ahiravan(a) or Mahiravan(a) was the son of sage Vishrava and a brother of Ravana, he was a rakshasa who secretly carried away Rama and his brother Lakshmana to the nether-world, consulted his friends and decided to sacrifice the life of the two divine brothers at the altar of his chosen deity, goddess Mahamaya. But Hanuman saved their life by killing Mahiravana and his army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahiravan

    Sita transforms into Kali to slay this demon as he is much powerful than Raavan. He defeats Ram and his army easily. Thus,

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  18. Was Meghanath stronger than Ravana?

    1. Ravana was stronger than Meghanatha/Indrajit. He had more accomplishments under his belt... The reason why he was so successful against Rama was his becoming invisible and attacking Rama. Since Rama did not know sonic archery (shabda vedhi techniques), he was not able to counter Indrajita. But since Ravana was a Rakshasa, he likely knew these techniques and their counter...

      In the final fight against Rama, Ravana managed to break Rama's confidence without needing to fight being invisible. Agastya had to intervene, give Rama the Aditya Hridayam shlokas and thereby reinforced Rama's confidence and allowed him to continue his fight with Ravana...

      According to Mahabharatha, Krishna says that Rama used deceit to defeat Ravana!

    2. Then why did Ravana not use these techniques against Rama?

    3. Lord Bhishma, it could be because Ravana did not know these war techniques that Indrajit knew. Or perhaps he wanted to defeat Rama without using his maya.

  19. Why could Ravana not enter Ayodhya?

    1. He did not invade Ayodhya because his kingdom spanned from Lanka to South India to Central India. He still had to conquer some North Indian kingdoms prior to reaching the boundaries of Ayodhya. Furthermore Dashratha's kingdom of Ayodhya was no weak one. Dashratha had many Northern kingdoms under his belt... If Dashratha had made Bharatha king and had not sent Rama to exile, Ravana would have eventually reached upto the boundaries of Ayodhya and successfully invaded it. The purpose of Rama going to the Dandaka Forest was to invade Rakshasa land and weaken (to eventually usurp) Ravana's kingdom.

  20. How did Parashuram exist in both Ramayana and Mahabharata?

    Parashu Rama toured the entire country and slaughtered all the Kshatriyas. This he had repeated 21 times, wiping out almost the entire Kshatriya race from the face of the Earth.
    Parasurama was a net destructive force in ancient Indian politics and religion the chaturvana leaning Brahmin compiler of the Puranas included him only because he was a Brahmin.
    And later Parasurama was defeated by Rama. What an absurdity of one avatar defeating his predecessor. This just means that the power and philosophical basis of the Parasuramic cult is null and void and yet he is still there as an avatar

    in Mahabharata he breifly appears in battle with Bhisma
    Bhishma, in his effort to get his step brothers married, was caught in a situation where he had to marry Amba, daughter of the King of Kasi for he attended the Swayamvara and Amba chose him: Bhisma refused to marry Amba explaining to her of his vow and the fact that he attended the Swayamvara only to choose a Bride for his step brother,Amba did not agree.
    Now in this instance Parasurama, urged by Amaba fought furiously with Bhishma.
    Bhishma remained undefeated.

    1. Parshurama only appears in Ramayana in Bala Kanda which is a later interpolation in its entirety, just like Uttara Kanda is. So, in the original Valmiki Ramayana, there was no mention of Parshurama.

      But that being said, Mahabharatha took place a maximum of 50 years after Ramayana. In Mahabharatha, the vanaras Mainda, Dwivida, and Hanumana are said to be living, along with the Rakshasa Vibhishana, king Janaka. Rshi Bharadwaja, the father of Drona was also living during the Ramayana.

  21. DID Kartaveerya Arjuna defeat Ravana?


    1. Only in Uttara Kanda, which is a later addition to the epic.

  22. hi milind thank u 4 replying all my query and having patience to read all my comments . i have few more
    thank u

  23. milind could u plz tell about birth of Hanuman i asked earlier u didnt answer it?

    1. Hanumana's mother was a vanara Anjana. She was cursed in her earlier birth when she was Punjikisthala, an apsara, to be born on Earth. In the present birth, Anjana was a daughter of the vanara Kunjara. She took a vow of एकपत्नीव्रतम्. In other words, she was a lesbian and adhered to a single wife.

      But then one day Vayu saw her roaming on the mountaintops and was attracted to her body. He disrobed her and embraced her (i.e. had sex with her). He raped her. She later lamented that Vayu destroyed her chastity! Vayu tried to please her by saying that her son will be a strong man and then left. Then Anjana delivered Hanumana in an cave, isolated from society...

      That is the story of Hanumana's birth. You can read it in Kishkindha Kanda Section 66:


    2. how can you know what the previous life of Anjana was? hanuman's parents were donkeys.

  24. Was Barbarika more powerful than pandavas and kavravas?

    why did he got killed by sri krishna?

    1. Barbarika is not mentioned in Vyasa Mahabharatha.

  25. Did Parasurama and Krishna have the same DNA?

    1. No mention of their DNA is made in Mahabharatha. But if they had the exact same DNA, then they would appear identical, which they didn't. Nowhere in the epic is it mentioned that they looked identical. So they likely did not have the same DNA.

  26. if Parashurama killed all Kshatriya (WARRIOR CLAN) during

    1. He didn't kill all of them most of them survived poopy.

  27. Why didn't Rama ask Vali (who beat Ravana easy) to help him?

    1. He likely never heard of Vali prior to his initial meeting with Hanumana and Sugriva. Sugriva narrated how he was wronged by Vali, who "stole" his wife Ruma. Wendy Doniger says that this created a parallel between Vali and Ravana in Rama's mind. Both "stole" wives of other men, and both were ruling kingdoms and were prosperous... So that made Rama filled with anger towards Vali. He saw Vali as a manifestation of Ravana, the person who stole his wife. Hence he not only supported Sugriva, but also actively killed Vali...

      When Vali is dying, he even asks Rama why Rama did not approach him to regain his wife. It is then that Rama realizes that he had been fooled by Sugriva. Rama also learned then that Kishkindha had a matrilineal tradition. So to become the next king, the present consort had to be married. Sugriva took Vali's consort Tara as a wife to rule the kingdom. Then, Vali took Sugriva's consort Ruma as a wife to regain the kingdom from Sugriva.

      So, in short, Rama was fooled by Sugriva into believing that Vali was the transgressor, when in reality the transgressor was Sugriva, who attempted to rob Vali of the kingdom.

  28. Why didn't Rama have his own Army to fight with Ravana?

    1. He was in exile, thats why. When in exile, he was no longer a prince, and had no right on the kingdom or the army!

  29. why did sri Krishna run away from Jarasandha many times in battle?

    1. Krishna was an inferior warrior than Jarasandha and hence was defeated by him. He was forced to flee from him due to "fear" of Jarasandha. This is mentioned in Sabha Parva by Krishna himself.

  30. Who was Babruvahana in Mahabharata? What's his story?

    1. After the Pandavas obtained Indraprastha, they made a rule that when one brother is with Draupadi nobody shall interrupt. The person that interrupts will be punished... One day, the cows of a brahmin were being stolen by some robbers and the brahmin appealed to Arjuna to save the cows. So Arjuna was ready to save their cows. But his Gandiva bow was left in the inner apartments, so he had to enter the inner apartments to get it. Since Yuddhistira and Draupadi were together in there, he broke the rule and was sentenced to exile for 12 years.

      In exile, he travelled around India and married many royal females. He impregnated Chitrangada, who later gave birth of Babhruvahana. But he never took her nor his son back to Indraprastha...

      After the Kurukshetra war was over, Arjuna went on a conquest prior to the Ashwamedha Yajna! He encountered Babhruvahana, and was made unconscious by Babhruvahana in fight. He then regained consciousness with the help of Chitrangada and then there was a happy family reunion...

  31. did hanuman had son named Makardhwaja?

  32. does ur work like Ramayana and Mahabharata are influenced by
    Wendy dongier and Sheldon pollock ?

    1. I have not read Pollock's work. I read some of Wendy's work, and I agree with her on some things and disagree with her on other things. But none of my posts are based on her views. These are all based on my views after reading Valmiki Ramayana.

  33. what are the thing u r going to inclde in part2 of Hanuman series?

    1. I will address these 3 main points:

      1. There are cross references to Hanumana burning down Lanka, from both Hanumana and Kumbhakarna, in Sundara Kanda and Yuddha Kanda, respectively. How would you explain this?

      2. Why did Ravana give an order to severe Hanumana’s penis? If it was to subdue Hanumana’s manliness, there are other symbols of manliness in one’s body such as the mighty arms, and thighs of an individual. Why was the punishment directed specifically at Hanumana’s penis?

      3. What was the actual purpose behind adding interpolations into Sundara Kanda of Hanumana burning down Lanka?

      It is going to be a long post by the way!

  34. Thanks Milin, for replying to my comments. I have indeed been inspired by your blog to study Ramayan on my own and understand the truths in the Ramayan. I had studied Aranya Kand on valmikiramayan.net. As you said, Sita was topless when Ravan came to the hut and then abducted her. Regarding her lower body cloth, I too have been trying to figure out what she could have been wearing, or the fashion in which she would have wore the lower cloth.

    I read the episode of Mahabharata translation where Urvashi goes into her step-son Arjun's chamber at night to make love. It is explicitly described as to what she was wearing and her body parts. I am going to guess that Sita was sorta dressed the same way, although not so exquisitely as she was in exile and living in the jungles. Please read the first paragraph of the link below -


    1. Rohit, yes Seetha would have probably been dressed like Urvashi. Below is a passage from that link:

      And her loins of faultless shape, the elegant abode of the god of love, furnished with fair and high and round hips and wide at their lower part as a hill, and decked with chains of gold, and capable of shaking the saintship of anchorites, being decked with thin attire, appeared highly graceful.

      Here it says that cloth was used to cover from the hips to the loins. Since it says the cloth was thin, it is fair to assume that it may have been transparent. Other than this cloth, there was no other cloth on Urvashi's body. I think Seetha was dressed that way. As shown in the image I directed to in the other post I linked, the genitals can somewhat be seen, suggesting that the cloth covering the loin was transparent. Furthermore, if we look at the picture, Ravana is holding one hand just beneath the upper thigh, such that his hand is in between the two thighs. If Seetha's was wearing a garment that covered all the way to her feet, then he would not have been able to hold her thighs in that manner as the cloth would not allow him to do so. Even Aranya Kanda section 49 mentions that Ravana lifted Seetha with one hand at her thighs. Keeping one hand beneath her upper thigh (as shown in the picture) is the most practical way to go about it...

      So, all in all, I would say she was topless, but wore a transparent cloth over the middle part of her body (ie. hips, loin, buttocks). I say that this cloth must be transparent because even prior to her sending Rama away after the deer, Valmiki addresses her in Aranya Kanda Section 43 (verse 1) as "sushroni", meaning the one with big hips, buttocks, and loin. This implies that at the time, Valmiki was able to see her loin, buttocks, and hips in detail. That would only be possible if she was naked (which she was not), or if the clothes around the "sroni" body area (i.e. hips, loin, buttocks) were transparent.

      So I agree with the conclusion you made!

    2. Wow, to think of Ramayan and Sita in such a sexual manner is very surprising, but very true.

  35. Hi Milin, I saw the sculpture picture that you had referred to in your earlier comment, showing Ravan abducting Sita. It seems Sita's genitals and breasts are visible, this seems to corroborate with my earlier comment on Urvashi's dress, as well as your comment on what Sita was wearing during abduction.

    Not sure if you alluded to this previously, but my studies show that Ravan and Sita did have sexual intercourse on pushpak viman. There are many hints in valmikiramayan.net, although not explicitly mentioned about any intercourse. Two hints are strong -

    1) Aranya Kand 49.22 - Sita was already in Ravan's lap before this verse, but then in this verse it says that Ravan picked her up, perhaps for sexual union? Then, in 49.23, Sita cries out. The translation seems to be that she is crying out for help, but I checked Sanskrit translation of many words and it is possible that she was crying-out in sexual ecstasy.

    2) In Aranya Kand 53.25b, Sita has now gone into Ravan's flank (embrace?). In the next verse (26), she is said to be in coitus with Ravan (viveshtitim) and her body is in vepathum (spasmodic jerking of her body), which sounds like intercourse taking place.

    Now, regarding vepathum, we can say that her body was shivering involuntarily due to fright and stress from kidnapping, but in the very next chapter and its first verse, she prepares to drop jewellery to Sugreev and others.

    So, one moment she is very frightened and her body is shivering, and shortly thereafter she has enough sense and control to drop jewellery. So, I think verse 53.26 indicates sexual intercourse between Ravan and Sita.

    This also brings-up another question - what was Ravan doing when Sita was trying to drop jewellery? Shouldn't he have stopped her? The jewelleries dropped to Sugreev indeed became vital clues for Ram and others as to Sita's kidnapping. My thinking is that it affirms intercourse between Ravan and Sita, because Ravan may have had lapse in attention after the intercourse during which Sita dropped the jewellery.

    I would love to know your opinion.

    1. Hi Rohit,

      Yes I agree with you that the clothing Seetha was wearing was similar to Seetha, albeit she likely wore less scent and jewellery... She did not cover her upper body, and to cover her hips and loin area, she used a transparent cloth! In Aranya Kanda Section 52 there is a detailed description of the jewellery that falls, some knowingly and unknowingly to Seetha! So from that description, we can reconstruct the types of jewellery she was wearing (i.e. a multi string pendant she wore around the breast, anklets, etc...).

      In Aranya Kanda Section 52, it is mentioned that her yellow cloth blew onto Ravana causing him to shine:

      उद्धूतेन च वस्त्रेण तस्याः पीतेन रावणः।
      अधिकं परिबभ्राज गिरिर्दीप्त इवाग्निना।।3.52.15।।

      Ravana was shining all the more with(her) yellow clothes blowing in the air, and looked like a mountain shining with fire burning around.


      I would interpret this as her loin garment heaving in the air and touching Ravana when the garment was loosened (by Ravana) from Seetha's body during sexual intercourse.

    2. I agree with your analysis of Aranya Kanda 49.22. In verse 21, it is already mentioned that he took her in his lap (anka). So there is no need to mention again that he took her (aadaya) once again in verse 23. I interpret this as sexual intercourse because it is mentioned that he wrapped her around his body (वेष्ट). Also, Seetha is likened to the wife of a king serpent. So, she was wrapped around Ravana just like the queen serpent around the king serpent. In sexual intercourse the serpents wrap themselves around another in order to engage in the act.

      Furthermore, it is also later mentioned that Seetha was wrapped around Ravana like a girdle (Seetha) around a black elephant (Ravana) - Aranya Kanda 52.30:

      तरु प्रवाल रक्ता सा नील अंगम् राक्षस ईश्वरम् |
      प्राशोभयत वैदेही गजम् कक्ष्या इव कांचनी || ३-५२-३०

      She that Vaidehi who is so delicate like reddish leaflets of trees made that blackish bodied lord of demons, Ravana, well and truly lambent, herself becoming a golden girdle girded around the elephant like Ravana.

      This supports that she was wrapped tightly around Ravana...

      In Aranya Kanda 49.23, I agree with you. The word "matta" is used, which means "excited by sexual passion". This supports the claim that in verse 22, Ravana took her in sexual intercourse.

      An interesting thing to note is that in verse 22, the word विवेष्टमानाम् is used, to suggest that Seetha was wrapped around Ravana. This word has the root वेष्ट. The word "वेष्टनक" which has the same root refers to a kind of coitus, suggesting that the root वेष्ट can also refer to being wrapped around in a sexual manner.

    3. In Aranya Kanda Section 53.25b, anka has been wrongly translated as "flank". It instead means "lap". So Seetha entered (ग) Ravana's lap. ग has been translated in the verse as to enter/go in. But it also means to enter in sexual intercourse. Given the context, it is better suited. I agree with your reasoning why the spasmodic jerks should refer to sexual intercourse instead of trembling due to shock/fear. A person in a state of shock would not have the presence of mind to drop ornaments for identification at that very instant.

      Ravana was a bit anxious because of Seetha's boasts of Rama's prowess. Hence he rushed to Lanka due to this anxiety. But I still don't find it believable that he would be so absent minded that he would not notice Seetha throwing her ornaments down to the ground. My interpretation is that Ravana was so immersed in sexual intercourse with her that he did not notice what Seetha was doing... This seems like the more logical explanation, in my opinion, considering that all attention gets concentrated to sex when one is engaged in the act. It is not possible for a man to think on a different topic deeply when engaging in sex.

    4. Here are some more hints...

      In Aranya Kanda Section 43, Seetha tries to convince Rama to go after the golden deer. But Lakshmana intervenes and says that there is no such thing as a golden deer, and tells Rama that this must be mareecha. So, Seetha cuts Lakshmana off in verse 9 and speaks to Rama, trying to convince him. What is interesting to note is that when she spoke, Valmiki says that she was filled with cozenage (i.e. deceit), suggesting that she had some other motive for sending Rama away, after the deer. He also mentions that Seetha gave Rama a "toothy smile" when requesting him to go after the deer. The kama-struck Rama agreed with Seetha and hence went off after the deer. So we can see that Seetha had an ulterior motive from the very start.

      In Aranya Kanda section 45, after Mareecha calls out to Lakshmana and Seetha prior to dying, Seetha urges Lakshmana to go and see if Rama is well. Lakshmana knows that this is one of Mareecha's tricks and tells her that Rama cannot be defeated by him. So he refuses to go after Rama. Seetha gets angry, due to worry for Rama, and abuses Lakshmana, saying that he lusts after her. Hearing this abuse, Lakshmana rushes away from the hut... Now if Seetha really thought that Rama's life was in danger or that he was dead, why would she not show any worry for Rama's life after Ravana entered the scene as a brahmin and started conversing with her from aranya kanda section 46 onwards. She, on the contrary, praises Rama's prowess to the skies, in front of Ravana. Is that the behavior of a wife who thinks her husband is on the verge of death. Furthermore, Ravana never tells Seetha about his plan with the deer. But she still accuses Ravana of using the deer to drag Rama away to the forest so that he could abduct her. Perhaps she knew instantly upon seeing the deer that it was sent by Ravana... Also, when Ravana kidnaps her, she cries out to Rama and tells Jatayu to report her kidnap to Rama. If she thought Rama was dead, why would she behave in that manner?

      All this points to the fact that she knew that Ravana planned to approach her using a deer, and that she knew that this "deer" could not have defeated Rama in war. Remember that Rama was the warrior that killed 14000 rakshasas in the dandaka forest single handedly... Hence, her pretence of showing worry for Rama's life to Lakshmana was done to convince him to leave the hut and go deep in the forest to see if Rama is well... She planned to drive off both Rama and Lakshmana from the hut (so Ravana can enter?).

      Once Ravana approaches Seetha, he notices that she has errect nipples (Aranya Kanda 46.19-20). This is common during sexual arousal. Furthermore, in Aranya Kanda 46.34, when inviting Ravana into her hut, Valmiki alludes that Seetha invited him in due to his lovelylooking appearance (सौम्य दर्शनम्)...

      In Aranya Kanda 46.35, Seetha noticed Ravana was a pseudo brahmin exhibiting deceit (उपाय), but still invited him into her hut... She must have had some very good reason to do so...

      Also, if you read the Seetha-Ravana convo from sections 47-48, Ravana proposes nicely and never mentions any intention to kidnap or rape her. Infact, the words "kidnap" and "rape" were first used by Seetha in the conversation. She was instigating Ravana to kidnap and rape her, by telling him that if he attempts to do either, Rama will kill him. By saying that, she was challenging him to kidnap/rape her and survive from Rama's hands after doing so...


    5. Now back to the kidnap...

      In Aranya Kanda 49.17, after Seetha was kidnapped by Ravana, Valmiki addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning "one with large hips, buttocks and loin". The reason why his attention was diverted to those body parts can be explained by the fact that Ravana was having sex with her then. Other than this, I don't see any reason why Valmiki would specifically mention Seetha's loin and buttocks...

      In Aranya Kanda 52.18-21, Valmiki says:

      तस्यास्तत्सुनसं वक्त्रमाकाशे रावणाङ्कगम्।
      न रराज विना रामं विनालमिव पङ्कजम्।।3.52.18।।

      Sita's face with her beautiful nose on Ravana's lap and not on Rama's, shone no more like a lotus without its stalk.

      [This verse suggests two things. One is that Seetha's face was in Ravana's lap. The second thing is that previously she used to put her face in Rama's lap, but Valmiki was upset that now it was in Ravana's lap, no longer in Rama's lap. To me, a face in his lap is an indication of oral sex. The fact that Valmiki says that in the past it used to be in Rama's lap further confirms this fact. Previously Rama engaged with Seetha in oral sex. But now Ravana was engaging with Seetha in the same and that upset Valmiki]

      बभूव जलदं नीलं भित्त्वा चन्द्र इवोदितः।
      सुललाटं सुकेशान्तं पद्मगर्भाभमव्रणम्।।3.52.19।।
      शुक्लैस्सुविमलैर्दन्तै प्रभावद्भिरलङ्कृतम्।
      तस्यास्तद्विमलं वक्त्रमाकाशे रावणाङ्कगम्।।3.52.20।।
      रुदितं व्यपमृष्टास्रं चन्द्रवत्प्रियदर्शनम्।
      सुनासं चारुताम्रोष्ठमाकाशे हाटकप्रभम्।।3.52.21।।

      Sita's face looked beautiful with her smooth forehead, shining hair and spotless complexion like the inside of a lotus, with clean, white, shining teeth, a nice nose and lovely red lips. She was continuously weeping and wiping her tears. Her face which was pleasing like the Moon on the lap of Ravana appeared as though the Moon was rising through dark clouds.

      [Here Valmiki places emphasis on Seetha's face. More specifically on her teeth, nose, and lips, which he describes in enough detail to suggest her mouth was wide opened at the time. This further confirms my claim that Seetha was engaged in oral sex with Ravana]...

  36. Thanks Milin, for taking the time to reply in your last 4 comments. They confirm my suspicions as well. I also feel that Sita had an ulterior motive in meeting Ravan and tricked Ram into going after the deer.

    What your wrote in your comments and what I am researching on my own is so stunning (Sita's attire and intercourse with Ravan). Can you imagine ... if Ramanand Sagar had shown even oh so briefly and even without any explicit nudity ... Deepika Chikhalia and Arvind Trivedi in coitus and her body jerking to and fro ... many TV sets would have been broken, riots all over the place, Ramanand Sagar and Arvind Trivedi's houses burnt down and killed by the mob.

    Congratulations to the British, Christian missionary, and their Indian partners for removing fun from Ramayan !!

    Anyway, another question -

    Can you please analyze Aranya Kand 47.22b, please? I am curious as to why Sita uses the word samashvas and muhurat. Why is she saying that Ram will be back in 48 minutes and until then you can stay here in mutual confidence ... besides the fact that she is not worried about Ram being killed by Mareech, what is she saying here?

    Also, other points that are remarkable, which I have come across, are -

    They support your writing in the agneepariksha blog and Sita having a soft corner for Ravan. During Ravan-Sita dialogue in Lanka, Sita is requesting Ravan to have friendship with Ram. Then, when Ram and army are at the doorstep of Lanka, Sita asks Sarama (I think Sarama) to see if Ravan is willing to release her or go to war with Ram.

    Why would she hope of a peaceful conclusion to this drama? Sita is clearly not wishing death for Ravan. So, like you had written in your other blog, she is sad to learn Ravan's death at the end of the war.

    1. Rohit,

      I agree with you. If the tv shows had shown the sexuality and violence in Ramayana, there would be lots of protests around the nation... Prior to reading Ramayana, I considered Ramananda Sagar's Ramayana as very authentic. But not anymore, after reading the Ramayana!

      Aranya Kanda 47.22b,

      If we read the verses prior to this, Seetha gives an introduction of herself. Then, in the verse after 22b, she asks Ravana to give his introduction. She mentions that Rama will be back in 48 minutes in 22b so that Ravana would hurry in giving his introduction and proposing to her in marriage!

      If we see the last verse in section 46, prior to Seetha giving her introduction, we can see Seetha's worry on whether Rama and Lakshmana would return quickly. She looked intently into the wilderness to see if Rama/Lakshmana would return quickly. She was clearly paranoid and wanted to prevent her husband from catching her red handed:

      ततः सुवेषम् मृगया गतम् पतिम्
      प्रतीक्षमाणा सह लक्ष्मणम् तदा |
      निरीक्षमाणा हरितम् ददर्श तत्
      महद् वनम् न एव तु राम लक्ष्मणौ || ३-४६-३८

      Then she looked forward for her shapely husband who has gone on a hunting game, and who must be returning along with Lakshmana, and though she looked intently she could only see the green backdrop of that great forest, but not Rama or Lakshmana. [3-46-38]

      Note how the verse says that she expected Rama/Lakshmana to return to the hut quickly, hence was looking intently for them... Nowhere in the verse is it mentioned that she looked for them as she was scared if they were still alive...

      So after being paranoid and worried that Rama/Lakshmana would come quickly to her, she then quickly introduced herself and urged Ravana to introduce himself quickly as her husband would come back within 48 minutes itself... This just shows that she was well aware of Ravana's intentions even before he proposed to her!

      I agree that in the Seetha-Ravana convo in Lanka, the intensity of her anger was much less than it was when she first met Ravana during the kidnap! But if we read the entire conversation, then she starts by asking Ravana to have friendship with Rama and return her to him. But she ends that speech of hers by saying that if Ravana does not return her then Rama will kill him. By saying that, she attacks his ego and ensures that Ravana will not give her back to Rama. Ravana was a person full of ego, that would not bend at the cost of his prowess being attacked, even verbally. Thats also why he decided to kidnap Seetha. For that same reason, after Seetha's words, he refused to give her back to Rama.

      So, I see Seetha's speech as slightly milder than her original speech with Ravana, showing a closer bond between the two as compared to when she first met him... But she still planned to destroy Ravana by attacking his ego and dragging him to war... In Lanka, when she talks to Hanumana, she urges him to quickly attack Lanka.

      Between Hanumana's visit to Lanka and the war on Lanka, there was a gap of several years. In that period, Seetha softened up towards Ravana. As I explained in the agnipariksha post, she was grieving on Ravana's death.

      As for Sarama... The army of Rama had reached Lanka at that time. So why would Seetha show worry for Ravana's life by asking if Ravana is still adamant of holding to her, unless of course she cared for Ravana? If she did not care for Ravana's life then it did not matter. Whether Ravana gave Seetha back or whether Ravana waged war, victory would be to Rama anyways...

      Furthermore, Sarana tells Seetha that if Seetha wants she can convey a message to Rama. But Seetha denies that and only asks her to check on Ravana's intentions. Does he want to return her to Rama or not?

    2. Thank you Milin for the analysis. I have one more question ...

      When Ravan brings Sita to his palace, right after the kidnapping, it is mentioned in one of the chapter/verse that Sita hides her face in her saree and she is crying. Now, her upper cloth was already discarded and her lower cloth is worn kinda how Urvashi wore her when visiting Arjun. So, does this mean Sita did not mind becoming completely nude at the moment Ravan is showing-off his palace? I guess not, since they already had sex.

      In contrast to the above, when Ravan comes to meet Sita in Ashok Garden in Lanka (I think Hanuman was hiding and watching), Sita covers her 2 breasts with her 2 hands, and covers her stomach with her thighs/legs. Why would she now hide her body from Ravan?

      I am curious about it and honestly cannot think of why this contrast in Sita's behavior, so wanted your expert opinion on this.

      Again, your writings are eye-opening and I am going to visit your blog everyday.

    3. Rohit,

      In Aranya Kanda Section 54, we know that Seetha threw down her उत्तरीयम्. Now although उत्तरीयम् can mean upper garment, it can simply mean "outer garment" as well. I think the translation of outer garment is better suited as she did not wear an upper garment... So, the golden garment that she was initially wearing to cover her loin would have been thrown down onto the ground with the ornaments... After that, when she entered Ravana's apartments, she was probably naked. This was no matter of shame considering some of Ravana's other wives in his harem were also naked as well (this is mentioned in detail in Sundara Kanda). In the harem only the king entered, so the women had no need as such to wear clothes to cover their genitals...

      After Seetha entered the harem of Ravana, Ravana told some of the Rakshasiis:

      मुक्तामणिसुवर्णानि वस्त्राण्याभरणानि च।।3.54.15।।
      यद्यदिच्छेत्तदेवास्या देयं मच्छन्दतो यथा।

      Pearls, gems or gold, clothes or ornaments, whatever she desires, be made available to her without any hesitation.

      After saying this, Ravana left his apartment briefly to talk to some Rakshasa warriors. So we can imply that Seetha probably wore some clothes in the meanwhile. Then when Ravana returned to Seetha to take her around his apartments (sections 55-56), she was dressed...

      But, in my opinion, Seetha using her cloth to wipe her tears is a later addition to the epic. In that verse (section 55, verse 31), Ravana says that Seetha has a clear, spotless face. But then the very next verse (verse 32), Valmiki says that Seetha has tears in her eyes and is wiping her eyes with her cloth. This makes no sense, in the context of Ravana's speech in verse 31, suggesting that the verse where Seetha was crying and used her clothes to wipe her tears in verse 32 is a later addition to the epic...

    4. Now about your question on why Seetha covered her body in front of Ravana...

      If we look at her behavior ever since her kidnap, she (indirectly) allured Ravana to kidnap her, but did not directly ask him to take her to Lanka. All her actions were indirect as she did not want Ravana to know that she willingly went to Lanka. Thats why she also shed some crocodile tears along the way.

      She did not want Ravana to feel that she was attracted to him as it would disrupt her entire political game plan. She planned to keep Ravana attracted to her body, albeit never agreeing to marry her. This intensified Ravana's passion for her, as she appeared like a target whom the womanizer Ravana could not accomplish. As a result, Ravana was blinded by passion and became a pawn in Seetha's political game, thereby weaking himself and his kingdom of Lanka, making it easier for Rama to attack and successfully invade Lanka.

      Ravana's spy network was infiltrated by Rama and Vibhishana and his treasury was depleted due to the lack of attention Ravana paid to his kingdom (due to Seetha's influence on him). Initially, Vibhishana was frustrated and likened Seetha to a dangerous serpent:

      वृतो हि बाह्वन्तरभोगराशि |
      श्चिन्ताविषः सुस्मिततीक्षणदम्ष्ट्रः |
      पञ्चाङ्गुलीपञ्चशिरोऽतिकायः |
      सीतामहाहिस्तव केन राजन् || ६-१४-२

      "By whom, O, king, has been wrapped around your neck, this great serpent of gigantic body called Sita, with heap of expended hoods as her bosom, having poison as her anxiety and with sharp fangs as her sweet smile and with five hoods as her five fingers."

      Note how Vibhishana mentions that Seetha's anxiety was the poison that was killing of Ravana. Tbh, whenever we see Seetha showing anxiety, it intensified Ravana's passion for her. Same is the case when she showed her anxiety in covering her stomach. This anxiety in Seetha increased Ravana's passion for Seetha (if you read the rest of their convo in Lanka). Seetha noticed this and always showed anxiety to increase Ravana's passion for her, ever since she first set foot in Lanka... Vibhishana was just lamenting at the way Seetha was manipulating Ravana through her show of anxiety...

      So, I don't see anything unusual in her behavior. Note how Seetha only covers her stomach and shows anxiety when Ravana approaches her in Sundara Kanda Section 19!

    5. Thanks Milin for the clarification. Makes sense. It is typical of women to allure men by playing such hide and seek games.

  37. Regarding your comment on oral sex - yeah, it is possible, I see what you are saying. Previously, I was imagining that at times Sita was in a tight hug with Ravan while both are standing and at other times Ravan has Sita in her lap while they are both facing outward or Sita facing Ravan.

    But, your comment brings another posture in my mind, it is certainly possible.

  38. I read the verses on Sita's face going into Ravan's lap and the surrounding verses (Aranya Kand 52). In the verse before the face goes into lap ... Sita's lower garment flies up in the air, so I got the feeling that Ravan put Sita in 69 position (standing or laying down) to kiss her rear end, which would put Sita's face in Ravan's lap area.

    I am not 100% sure if Sita actually gave oral sex to Ravan.

    1. Rohit,

      Yes, it was good you took note of that... It is very likely that Ravana put Seetha in the 69 position. But even in that position, couldn't she have given Ravana oral sex? I think it is very much possible. The fact that Valmiki places emphasis on Seetha's teeth and lips (by describing them in detail) suggests that Seetha was doing something using her mouth!

  39. Hi Milin - I certainly think that in Aranya Kand 52.18, 19, 20, Sita's face is on Ravan's genitals. AnKa Gaa ... where AnKa means lap or penis in this context and Gaa would mean to go into or sexual intercourse. I agree with you that AnKa does not mean flank. But, I am hesitant to think that Sita fully involved herself in the sexual act with Ravan. So, even though she was in position to give oral to Ravan, I don't think that she actually did.

    But, you do have a good point ... Valmiki describes her teeth in 52.20, so she may have given oral or may have kissed his genitals without giving a full oral.

    Sita seems to be enjoying the foreplay and the sex that follows at the end of chapter 53, with Ravan in Aranya Kand 52 and 53, but she does not seem to be fully on board. In 52.44, Valmiki again describes her smile and teeth, she is allowing Ravan to have his way with her, for example in 52.33 he is probably fondling and kissing her breasts.

    But, there are many instances where Sita is in pain and crying, she has also said a lot of harsh words to Ravan in chapter 53. I don't think she is fully on board with Ravan. But, this is just my feeling.

    1. Rohit,

      The anger and tears by Seetha were a way to fool Ravana into believing that the sex was not consensual... Prior to her ranting in section 53, the end of section 52 says that she was smiling:

      ततः तु सा चारु दती शुचि स्मिता
      विना कृता बन्धु जनेन मैथिली |
      अपश्यती राघव लक्ष्मणाउ उभौ
      विवर्ण वक्त्रा भय भार पीडिता || ३-५२-४४

      She who is already detracted from her kinsfolk in Mithila or in Ayodhya, that Maithili with pretty teeth and clean-cut smile is then distanced from the only two last kinsmen, for either Raghava or Lakshmana or both are unseen by her, and thus her face is paled for she is chastened by the cumber of consternation. [3-52-44]

      Seetha was probably worried that due to her smiling and behavior in section 52 that Ravana may think the sex was consensual. Hence, her rant in section 53 to try to fool Ravana into believing the sex was non-consensual. Making him believe that was very important, for later political plans, as I mentioned earlier...

    2. I think there may be some truth to what you commented above (fooling Ravan that sex not consensual). I have heard that in Adhyatma Ramayan - Ram warns Sita before the kidnapping that Ravan will be coming soon and the plan is to kill Ravan for which Sita has to play her part. So, what you said falls in line with it.

      But, I am trying to ignore the Godly reasons for why something happens in Ramayan and trying to focus on the facts as described in the verses, so I keep getting the feeling that Sita is not fully on board with Ravan although she is attracted to him and enjoys the foreplay in chapter 52, then sex at the end of chapter 53.

    3. Rohit,

      Yes, you are right. Section 52 is more about foreplay than full fledged sex. But Seetha was enjoying it as we can see from her big smile in 3.52.44... In Section 53 they engage in sexual intercourse as well... But even before Jatayu interrupted them, in section 49, they were also engaged in sex... This was interrupted by Jatayus attack on Ravana, though!

      I am not taking godly factors into account. I disagree that Rama warns Seetha of the kidnapping... The entire kidnap is orchestrated by Seetha, not Rama. Had Seetha allowed Ravana to feel she was attracted to him, then it would have defeated the entire (political) purpose of her kidnap...

  40. Hi Milin, it completely slipped my mind about 49.22 (Ravan seizing Sita and going into coitus with her) and 49.23 (sexual intercouse, Sita shouting in sexual enjoyment). She did enjoy it.

    I agree that she enjoyed the foreplay in chapter 52 as well. Since you have been so right about things in your past blogs and comments, I read 52.18 and 52.20 verses again.

    In 52.18, her nose and face is said to go into Ravan's lap or genitals (we had discussed the 69 position that they probably were in, laying down most likely). Then, in 52.20, her teeth, eyes, face are described and said to go into Ravan's genitals. 52.21 describes her lips, I guess that is when she gives the oral.

    If I can get the idea out of my head that Sita was crying and in pain during the abduction + said harsh words to Ravan in chapter 53, then I'd say she definitely gave an oral to Ravan. You will have to explain the whole "political game" thing to me someday. I am not clear on the political chess match going on.

    She was sexually aroused when she saw Ravan come to the hut. So, it is possible she took some initiative in foreplay in chapter 52, such as giving oral.

    This is all very exciting and stunning to me. Valmiki Ramayan is much better than any Hindi or English movies that I have seen. Thank you again for this blog, it is very revealing (pun intended !).

    1. Rohit,

      About the political game... When Seetha, Rama, and Lakshmana first entered the Dandaka Forest, some Rshis appealed to Rama and asked him to eliminate the Rakshasas because the Rakshasas were interrupting their vedic sacrifices (i.e. these vedic animal sacrifices were banned in Ravana's territory, but despite that the Rshis were still performing them so the Rakshasas had to employ harsh means)... Seetha realizes that the trangressors were the Rshis and asks Rama to refuse to kill off the Rakshasas in the Dandaka Forest. She asks him to obey the (Rakshasa) laws of the land (i.e. they were in Dandaka, Ravana's territory).

      Rama refuses to listen to Seetha and goes out to exterminate the Rakshasas. Then, one fine day, Shurpanakha met Rama in the forest. We all know how she was defaced by Lakshmana, on Rama's orders. But Shurpanakha's narration of the incident to her brothers Khara/Dushana suggests bitterness and jealousy in Seetha's mind for Shurpanakha...

      After this encounter, Seetha behaves more "hostile" towards the Rakshasas. There was something that happened between Seetha and Shurpanakha that provoked Seetha to wish for the destruction of Shurpanakha and the Rakshasas... Shurpanakha says that Rama abandoned and got her defaced due to Seetha's influence on him...

      So this bitter Seetha-Shurpanakha encounter made Seetha desirous for the destruction of Ravana and the Rakshasas... So she allures Ravana to kidnap her. She plans that after her kidnap, she will not submit to Ravana, and thereby keep Ravana's burning passion for her alive. In this passion, Ravana neglected his duties for his kingdom, and that ultimately led to his downfall... Ravana was a womanizer. He was the type of person that had women coming to his harem willingly. Valmiki says that all Ravana's women came to his harem willingly, influenced by "kama", and that he forcefully kidnapped none of them. So, Seetha consistently refusing him was attacking his "male ego". She resembled a target that Ravana was not able to achieve, and hence Ravana's interest in her did not reduce. It only intensified over time, with the desire to convince her to marry him...

      But this plan of Seetha would only work if she made Ravana believe she was not interested in him! That is why, whenever we see hints of her attraction to Ravana, such as her smiling during the sex, we subsequently see her lashing out at Ravana to fool him into believing that the sex was non-consensual... In fact, after she reaches Lanka, she tells Ravana:

      क्रीडन्ती राज हंसेन पद्म षँडेषु नित्यशः |
      हंसी सा तृण षण्डस्थम् कथम् द्रक्षेत मद्गुकम् || ३-५६-२०

      "How a she-swan ever frolicking with majestic swans in bunches of lotuses can leer at a water-crow sneaking in a bunch of grass? [3-56-20]

      इदम् शरीरम् निःसंज्ञम् बन्ध वा घातयस्व वा |
      न इदम् शरीरम् रक्ष्यम् मे जीवितम् वा अपि राक्षस || ३-५६-२१
      न तु शक्यामि उपक्रोशम् पृथिव्याम् धातुम् आत्मनः |

      "Oh, demon, you may either trammel or vandalise this inertial body of mine. I claim neither this body nor life of mine as my own. But I am intolerant to bear with any disrepute on this earth." Thus Seetha castigated Ravana. [3-56-21, 22a]

    2. Thanks for the explanation, I will have to chew on it for a while.

  41. One other thing that I want to mention, from my studies -

    In Aranya Kand, 3.17, Ram describes to Lakshman that Sita has entered the anka of Viradh. Praveshita word is used for enter, which also means to impregnate.

    This is again a small confirmation that anka means lap or penis, not flank. You must have noticed this too.

    Also, I have noticed, when the words anka aadaaya are used - it means taking into lap. When anka ga are used - it means enter into penis. One of the meaning of ga is intercourse.

    1. Rohit,

      Yes! That is a big hint that Viraadha raped Seetha! I also agree with what you said about anka aadaaya... Now just imagine if tv shows showed all this to the viewers. Haha! The TV shows don't even show Viraadha lifting Seetha, let alone him having sex with her!

    2. It is terrible how orthodox and constricted the mentality of Indians have become, in fact it is more or less true all over the world. People just don't feel that the enjoyment of the sense of touch is just like the enjoyment of the other 4 senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing). What is wrong with it, as long as it is done where nobody is harmed or no other adverse impact.

      I agree about the TV shows, they don't even show navel of actresses that are portraying goddesses, at least not when I was living in India. Not sure how it is nowadays.

      One of the last TV serials that I saw on DD was Vishwamitra. They used to show the navel of Menaka (Bhanupriya), which was cool. This was late 80s, early 90s. But, that was Menaka, not Sita.

  42. I have been studying Aranya Kand chapters 54, 55, 56.

    In 56.24b, Sita has just finished saying harsh words to Ravan, and in this verse Ravan addresses her as the one with sweet smile.

    In 52.44, after foreplay is paused or slowed, Sita smiles.

    In Sundara Kand 20.29, Ravan addresses Sita as the one with beautiful smile and beautiful teeth.

    He must have been receiving some hope and optimism from Sita through the abduction and captivity in Lanka that she will eventually marry her and that she is attracted to him. Why else would Ravan hold on to her for so long and risk war with Ram and risk death.

    I am beginning to believe Milin's theory on the political game that Sita is playing with Ravan.

    It seems that all the harsh words that she says to Ravan in chapter 53 and chapter 56 (Aranya Kand) are more in kidding way (sweet anger), Ravan realizes that and continues to proceed in his way (to acquire Sita). If she really was angry or sad about the kidnapping or the sex, Ravan would have stopped proceeding and maybe even returned her to Ram ... why work so hard on a woman who simply does not want him. Sita is keeping Ravan confused and "mid-way".

    Some of Sita's words truly go overboard - Ravan will go to hell, Ravan cannot even touch me (after Ravan has already had sex with Sita), etc.

    Man, there is so much hidden message in these verses, I have to read everything more than once to fully comprehend and string the narrative together.

    Sita is the one who brought up the word kidnap to Ravan, first. She is definitely pushing his buttons.

    1. Rohit, I completely agree with you. Right now I am reading Indonesian Ramayana (also called Kakawin Ramayana). Its significantly different than Valmiki Ramayana. Here are some interesting points that I compiled:

      1. In Kakawin Ramayana, Seetha is the consort of Rama, but biologically related to Rama/Lakshmana as she was their dear sister. She was younger than Rama, but older than Lakshmana!

      2. In Kakawin Ramayana, Shurpanakha is a spy of Ravana, situated in the Dandaka Forest. Ravana kept such spies in the forests wherever the Vedic Aryan Rishis were as he found those Rishis dangerous (after all, it was the Rishi Agastya that led to his downfall)! So, Shurpanakha first sees Rama with Seetha, and filled with shame, she runs away from the area. The text does NOT say that she was attracted to Rama. However, she later sees Lakshmana. She approaches Lakshmana in the disguise of a very pretty woman! Lakshmana sees her and is equally attracted to her. However, he refuses to fulfill her desire and mate with her as she was not a virgin! So he sends her to Rama. Rama is attracted seeing her beauty and says that the reason he cannot have sex with her is that his wife is nearby (i.e. if Seetha was not around, he would have had sex with her). So he sends her back. Shurpanakha goes to Lakshmana and drops at his feet. Lakshmana somehow feels that she is a Rakshasa (perhaps he found out she was Ravana's spy?) and then defaces her... Since no character refers to her nose as "physically mutilated", it could be possibly that Lakshmana cutting off her nose was symbolic (i.e. "naak kat gayi"could represent Shurpanakha getting raped/violated by Lakshmana). This is just a possibility... After getting defaced, Shurpanakha threatens Lakshmana that Ravana will kill them off!

      3. Shurpanakha appeals to her brothers Khara, Dushana, and Trishara to destroy Rama/Lakshmana. They first send a batch of Rakshasas to defeat them, which get destroyed by both Rama and Lakshmana. Unlike in Valmiki Ramayana, both Rama and Lakshmana participate in the war, not just Rama! Then, after this batch is destroyed, Khara and Dushana lead another army and attack Rama. They also get killed along with their army. Then Trishara attacks Rama with another army and gets killed... Interesting to note that in Valmiki, there are only 2 attacks instead of 3. The first is by 10 powerful Rakshasas. The second is an attack by 14000 Rakshasas led by Khara, Dushana, and Trishara.

      4. After her brothers get killed, Shurpanakha appeals to Ravana to destroy Rama. In Valmiki Ramayana, she puts more emphasis on the fact that Rama was accompanied by beatiful Seetha and she got physically defaced when attempting to kidnap Seetha for Ravana. However this is not the case in Kakawin Ramayana. She only spends a few verses describing Seetha's beauty. The majority of her speech deals with how Ravana was not alert and has his powerful Rakshasas killed in the Dandaka Forest. Ravana's response shows that he was not filled with kama when he heard of Shurpanakha's words... He assures Shurpanakha that he is more than a match for Rama in war.

    2. 5. He then goes to Mareecha to ask for assistance in killing Rama. No plan was made to kidnap Seetha. After much convincing, Mareecha agrees and takes on the form of a golden deer. This is quite different from Valmiki Ramayana where Ravana plans from the start, to kidnap Seetha.

      6. Seeing the deer, Seetha asks Rama to go after the deer, which he willingly does. Rama has a battle with the deer and kills it, after which it makes some sounds. Seetha hears these sounds and urges Lakshmana to go to Rama. Lakshmana refuses, and Seetha accuses him of lusting after her (same thing happens in Valmiki Ramayana)! Then Lakshmana gets angry and curses Seetha that she be captured by the enemy. Since Seetha shows no reaction of shock upon hearing this, it suggests that both Lakshmana and Seetha knew that the enemy (Ravana) was around and that he was waiting to kidnap her, which both of them wanted to happen.

      7. After Lakshmana goes to the forest, Seetha is not in a state of panic thinking that her husband is dead. Instead, she very calmly is picking flowers from her garden.

      8. Ravana approaches Seetha, and asks her to be his wife. But Seetha stays silent. This is quite in contrast to Valmiki Ramayana where she lashes out at Ravana and verbally abuses him upon his proposal to her... Anyways, seeing that Seetha was not making a move, Ravana gets angry and abducts (and has sex with) Seetha. When abducted, Seetha does not appeal to Rama, but instead abuses him. Instead, she accepts that Lakshmana loves her and after asking for forgiveness to him for her cruel words, she asks him to help her...

      9. Jatayu intercepts midway and attacks Ravana. The battle gets fierce and Ravana loses one of his arms in the battle (i.e. he was holding onto Seetha with that arm) and Seetha falls from his grip, towards the ground. Jatayu catches her as she was on her way down. Overall, the text seems to suggest that after catching her, Jatayu raped her and desired to keep her for himself. He was described as holding Seetha tightly and in response to that, she was afraid and moaning... Jatayu was taking Seetha away, but in the meanwhile, Ravana attacked him, and cut off one of his wings. Jatayu fell down and Ravana caught Seetha in his arms (when this happened, she was also described as "swooning"), boarded another chariot (as the original one was destroyed by Jatayu in battle) and went to Lanka.

      10. In Valmiki Ramayana, Ravan threatens Seetha that if she does not accept him in a single year, then he will chop her to pieces and eat her. No such threat is made in Kakawin Ramayana. Also, Ravana proposed every day to Seetha in marriage, but she always refused to marry him (Kakawin Ramayana).

    3. 11. After killing Mareecha, Rama is anxious and rushes back towards Seetha. He was in a state of fear that Seetha had abandoned him. When Lakshmana told him of how Seetha abused him and "forced" him to go into the forest after Rama, Rama's "heart was broken into pieces, he thought the world was void"... He realized that Seetha sent Lakshmana away so that she could abandon Rama... Rama thought she did not love him anymore. A possible explanation for why Rama abandons her after winning Lanka (agnipariksha episode)?

      12. In Kakawin Ramayana, the name of Kabandha was actually "Dirghabahu". Also Ayomukhi (the Rakshasii that Lakshmana cut the nose, ears and breast off after she proposed in marriage to him) is not mentioned in Kakawin Ramayana.

      13. Sugriva's consort was described as being "Tara" (not Ruma), whom king Vali stole. In Valmiki Ramayana, when Vali dies, Tara is on his side, grieving... But not in Kakawin Ramayana. Also Sugriva was described as having children in Kakawin Ramayana. In Valmiki Ramayana, he had no children. The story of Vali killing Dundhubi, where both brothers go to the cave and Sugriva blocks the cave thinking Vali had died is not present in Kakawin Ramayana.

      14. Hanumana's prowess is emphasized in Indonesian Ramayana. However, he is more of a comedic character in Kakawin Ramayana, in comparison to the Valmiki Ramayana! He makes fun of the Rakshasas for not being able to detect that he was a Vanara wearing the disguise of a Rakshasa. In Valmiki Ramayana he enters Lanka in a smaller form. However, in the Kakawin Ramayana, he enters Lanka disguised as a Rakshasa in Kakawin Ramayana! He also addresses Seetha when he meets her in Lanka as his lady. He says "Certainly Rawana will be killed by King Rama in battle. He has to pay with his life for the sins of kidnapping MY lady".

      15. In Kakawin Ramayana, even prior to Hanumana stepping foot in Lanka, Ravana got to know, through his spies, that Rama would send a Vanara as a messenger to Seetha.

      16. Ravana alludes to the fact that he committed adultery with Seetha. He tells Hanumana that it is the dharma of Rakshasas to commit adultery! Also, in Kakawin Ramayana, the Rakshasas were not demons, but instead "protectors" (i.e. raksha = protector)...

      17. In the Kakawin Ramayana, there is much more verbal abuse between characters, (in their arguments) in comparison to in Valmiki Ramayana.

      18. In Kakawin Ramayana, Trijata calls Seetha her mistress and from their conversations it seems like they had a relationship of romantic love.

      19. The exile period was not 14 years in Kakawin Ramayana!

      20. Upon killing Ravana and returning to Lanka, the author describes the sex between Rama and Seetha in much detail. He described how they stripped each other naked and then how the penis of Rama penetrated of Vulva... Interestingly, in this version, Rama was described as a master of amorous play (kamasutra). In Valmiki Ramayana, even Seetha alludes to the fact that he could not satisfy her by calling her "a woman in the body of a man"...

  43. Hi Milin - thanks for posting the information on Kakawin Ramayan, I did not know about it or the details.

    There has been so much distortions done to the original Ramayan over time that it is hard to figure out the truth. We have to read so many versions and very carefully, then try to create a narrative and connect the dots on our own.

    Some of the following points that you made are striking to me, but no longer surprising, as I have come to learn that the sexual attitudes of people in ancient India was much different that what it is now, which mainly an influence of Muslim and Christian religions, especially Christian religion.

    - Sita was biological sister of Ram and Lakshman.
    - The word 'devar' is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan as well. The word literally means 'second husband', Lakshman was indeed the second husband of Sita, but people have been so asexualized that even though the word 'devar' is used these days, nobody thinks that it literally means 'second husband'.
    - Not surprised that Jatayu wanted to have sex or had sex with Sita. Even in today's world, if somebody were to save a beautiful woman, he would surely think that he now has the privilege to enjoy her, after all he saved her.
    - As you have mentioned too, Sita was not the "one man" innocent wife that everybody thinks that she was. She definitely wanted to have a relationship with Ravan, she didn't want Ravan to be killed.

    I am going to post another comment now regarding some very very faint clues about Dashrath-Sita relationship and Sita being Ravan's daughter, per my studies of Valmiki Ramayan (inspired by your blog !). The clues are, obviously, very very faint and I could be totally wrong, but given the liberal attitude towards sexuality in ancient India, I feel confident in reading between the lines.

  44. In Sundar Kand 20.18, Ravan tells Sita that he can conquer chains of cities and give to Janak for Sita's sake. It has been almost 26 years since Sita was given in marriage by Janak to Ram. So, why would Ravan want to give anything to Janak at this point, in order to obtain Sita?

    If anything is to be given, give to Ram.

    In the same chapter, in verses 25 and 35, Ravan says that Sita's bandhav (relatives or brothers) will also sport in her. Sport in her means enjoy her sexually. Which relatives is Ravan talking about? Surely, nobody from Ayodhya will do so, and not from Mithila either. So, he is talking about his relatives in Lanka. Now, it is entirely possible that Ravan is saying that my relatives will be yours after our marriage, hence your relatives will sport in you. But, given that Sita is not eager to marry Ravan, why would Ravan say "your" relatives. He would say - my relatives will also sport in you.

    It does raise the question that maybe Sita is Ravan and Mandodari's daughter. Ravan and Sita know that. Ravan is wanting to show his gratitude to Janak for raising his daughter into such a beautiful woman, so he wants to donate land to Janak.

    BTW, Milin has mentioned in his previous blog article that Hanuman mistakenly thought of Mandodari to be Sita, the daughter is expected to look alike her mother.

    Even in today's world, the word 'kanya daan' is used, where the father donates the daughter to the groom. But, just like the word 'devar', we are conditioned to not pay attention to what kanya daan literally means.

    If you have lots of money, you are not obligated to donate, if you want you can donate and that is a good thing, but you don't have to. You can enjoy/keep your money for your own sake or your family's sake.

    1. Rohit,

      I found your perspective interesting and true. The word "lalana", which was translated as sporting also means dalliance, so it does have a sexual nature, as you mentioned. Since Ravana was not willing on sending Seetha back North, it implies that when he says "your relatives", he refers to "her relatives in Lanka". So your conclusion that she must have had maternal relatives in Lanka definitely makes sense! It also suggests that at least down south in Rakshasa lands, incest was not looked down upon.

      However, there is another perspective, I would like to add. In Sundara Kanda Section 19.10, Valmiki says (about Seetha) the following:

      वृत्तशीलकुले जातामाचारवति धार्मिके |
      पुनः संस्कारमापन्नां जातामिव च दुष्कुले || ५-१९-१०

      Being born in a virtuous traditional family with good conduct and character and getting married again, Seetha appeared as if She was born in a bad family.

      This suggests that her relation with Ravana was like that of his consort, and she got a second family after this "second marriage" to Ravana. So, perhaps Seetha was not really Ravana's daughter, but after staying with him for that long, Ravana's relatives were part of her family.

      What are your thoughts on that?

    2. The word Jaataa is used twice in this verse. I did not take it to mean "born". I interpreted the verse as -

      Belonging to a virtuous traditional family with good conduct and character (Ram's family), then following down (panna) in purity (sanskar), she appeared (eva means as if or appeared) to be belonging (jaataa) to a bad family.

      Sita had fallen in her sanskar (purity), she wanted to have sex with Ravan even if she didn't want to be kidnapped.

      The verse right before this one describes Sita as pannaga vadhu, vadhu means mistress or second wife. Dharma-patni is first wife, vadhu is thereafter.

      When Hanuman gives ring to Sita as token from Ram, it is said that Sita felt shy or embarrassed (hriyati). As you had mentioned in your past blog articles, Sita is not the kind of person who feels shy about her feelings for Ram or another lover. She felt embarrassed because of her behavior (sex with Ravan).

    3. I still feel that this verse does not negate the possibility that Sita was Ravan's daughter.

    4. BTW, putra-vadhu is yet a third term (after devar and kanya daan) that is not understood properly and ignored in the modern times. Vadhu means mistress, the son's wife is a mistress or second wife to the son's father. That is how it was in the ancient times, should not be implemented like that in the modern times.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. Please don't take my comment above to mean that fathers can keep their daughters and not let her marry. In ancient times, such privilege was the result of past good karmas and not force or abuse. In no way, should force or abuse be done and I am sure that it is not sanctioned in Hinduism or any other religion.

    Such privilege in ancient times was strictly mutual, no force or abuse.

  47. In Aranya Kand, when Ravan brings Sita into his palace after abduction, he orders to his women servants that Sita be provided jewelry and ornaments per her wish.

    After Sita's abduction, Ram is given Sita's ornaments that she had thrown to Sugreev. Ram questions Lakshman about it and expects him to recognize her ornaments.

    Both these situations and even women's choices in jewelry in modern times indicate that one size does not fit all.

    In Ayodhya kand 39.15, Dashrath orders a treasury office to bring clothing and ornaments for Sita, considering the length of time that she has to dwell in the jungles. No specific laundry list is given ... nor does Dashrath ask Ram or Kausalya to give a specific list of jewelry to be brought by the officer per Sita's choices.

    As I mentioned earlier, the clues about Dashrath-Sita relationship are obviously scant and faint, but this verse may indicate (may) that Dashrath may have been familiar with Sita's choices and must have given a list to the officer, which was removed from the Ramayan later on, for obvious reasons.

    If such a list was given by Ram or Kausalya, no need to remove those verses.

    That is the privilege that a king or even a father-in-law enjoyed in ancient times.

    Again, no force or abuse, strictly mutual and natural, nobody should try to implement something like this in today's day and age, it would simply be abuse and nothing else.

    1. Rohit, what you said does make sense. It should raise some valid questions... Seetha had her own jewellery. Dashratha could have just told her to keep her jewellery with her. What was the need to go out of his way and describe the jewellery and clothes his daughter in law should wear?

      By the way, I found some evidence that can be interpreted as Kaushalya and Dashratha being the father and mother of Seetha. When Rama comes to tell Seetha the news of exile, he wants her to stay back in Ayodhya. However, she wants to go to exile. To convince Rama to take her along, she says the following verse:

      न मातुर् न पितुस् तत्र स्मरिष्यामि न वेश्मनः |
      आर्तवानि उपभुन्जाना पुष्पाणि च फलानि च || २-३०-१६

      "Enjoying the flowers and fruits belonging to various seasons there, I shall neither recollect my mother nor father nor my home."

      If Seetha agreed to Rama and stayed back in Ayodhya, even then she would not get to meet Janaka, as he lived far South in Mithila. So, from this verse, it seems like she is addressing Dashratha and Kaushalya as her father and mother.

    2. Yep, I agree. Dashrath took the trouble to order ornaments for Sita instead of asking Sita to go to her palace and get all her belongings for use in the jungles for 14 years. He also did not ask Sita to specify her choices to the officer, nor asked Ram or Kausalya to do so.

      In my opinion, and I admit that it is a stretch, Dashrath knew Sita intimately and loved her (not infatuated with her) enough to order her jewelry.

      Regarding the verse that you quoted on mother-father ... I see what you are saying and there may be truth to it ... Sita maybe Ram's sister. Not sure if it was the same way then as it is now ... wife should think of husband's parents as hers. Is that how Sita was referring to Dashrath and Kausalya, not sure. But, yes it is possible clue that Sita was Ram's sister.

    3. Seetha usually referred to Dashratha as her father in law. But here she clearly addresses him as her father. BTW, if Rama was her brother, then Dashratha would be both a father and father in law...

  48. excellent interpretation..

    sita stayed in ayodhya before exile..why she did not become preganant?

  49. also at what age sita married rama? how long in ayodhya before exile? why she did not become preganat in all these years till kidnap by ravana?

    1. There are some confusions on her age during marriage. To Ravana, she tells him that her age during marriage was 6 and Rama's age was 12, and that when they departed for exile, her age was 18 and Rama's was 24. However, since she realized Ravana was a pseudo brahmin by the time she said that, there are doubts on how truthful that is.

      In Ayodhya Kanda Seetha says that she had long passed puberty by the time of her marriage to Rama. So she could not have been 6 years old at the time of her marriage.

      Furthermore, in Ayodhya Kanda, Kaushalya says that Rama was 17 years old when he was exiled to the forest! Seetha was definitely younger than Rama, so less than 17 years when exiled...

      Now about her age during the marriage. She said she was long past her puberty when she got married. So if we take that as 2-3 yrs, she was about 14 yrs old when she got married to Rama.

      Now how old was she when she went to exile? In Kakawin Ramayana (Indonesian version), Lakshmana was younger than Seetha. So Seetha was probably 16 yrs old and Lakshmana 15 yrs when they went to exile. Manthara says that only Bharatha's birth happened close to Rama's birth. Lakshmana and Shatrughan's birth happened much later, according to her. So, Lakshmana being 2 yrs younger than Rama makes sense...

      So Seetha was in Ayodhya for about 2 years prior to exile. Why did she not get pregnant? She was with Rama for 15 years (2 yrs prior to exile + 13 yrs in exile). My simple answer to that was that he was impotent and therefore unable to impregnate Seetha. Seetha even addresses him once as a female in the body of a man, hinting at his lack of vigor and virility...

  50. hi milind
    u have not yet answered previous question I posted in previous article was questions very hard. I did ask lot of doubts cuz u hve some good answers.

  51. milind I saw u posted a comment in a capts blog

    Milin Patel
    August 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM

    You are an idiot captain. Please use your brain. Which female bowler bowls at 160 km/hour? None. So Raj/Kaur are not going to face such fast bowlers... Not everyone appreciates your misogyny...


    Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
    August 2, 2017 at 12:32 PM








      PUNCH INTO GOOGLE vadakayilzioniststooge.blogspot.com/2015/02/captain-ajit-vadakayil-is-israeli.html

    2. I didn't really feel bad from his response! His reply just shows how much sex starved he is. LOL... Every day or so, you will see his comments where he calls people sluts and whores, etc... Just disgusting! And yes, I saw your comments. You exposed captain well! Captain's followers are so silly... When the captain is asked for evidence that the Rothschilds rule India, all he said was that the name does not come up in media, and if you google the name it gives approximately 30 million search results... Really hilarious logic! LOL.


  53. hi milind last few questions bear with me

    can Hindu purans like Ramayana and Mahabharata be considered allegory?

  54. u have said Vishnu is post Vedic times deity how do you explain brahma Vishnu and shiva trinity god? ie creation
    sustaing creation and destruction of creation

  55. u have mentioned that ravaan was not tantric worshipper what abt the instance where his son indrajit invokes
    nikumbila devi for victory against laxman? and aslo ravan
    uses various mantras to invoke astraas

  56. what is ur opnion on dattatreya and aghora movement?

  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. i read rama committed suicide and his brothers also..

      is it true? what happened really?

    2. also did sita committed suicide by self immolation?

  58. Hi Milin - hope all is well, I am eagerly waiting for part 2 of this article. Thanks.

    1. Hi Rohit, I am currently finishing up on part 2 of the series, and should have it posted later tonight...

    2. Rohit, here is a link to Part 2:


  59. Milin you are ruining your good work of raising doubts about later additions by the illogical (and forgive me, some downright idiotic) interpolations you are making of straight forward dialogues. Also I don't agree with your translation of penis. One, no one calls it 'bhushanam' while a vaanar proudly displays his tail. Also how can others see it even if it was burned.
    You also ignore hundreds of instances where vaanars are addressed as kapi kunjara.
    While abduction it clearly says that the one who HAD a beautiful smile turned pale on being forcibly taken away. It looks like you are hell bent on not only twisting everything, but are also affected by the then appropriate shrangaar language used by the poet to turn everything into porn. I was initially impressed but...

    1. Hi Nakul,

      There are two ways to interpret the sringara language used in these epics. One way is to simply assume that it was only standard practice to make the poetical language more flowery, eloquent, and pleasant to the ear... and that one should not read too much into it. The other way to interpret the shringara language is to understand the flowery aspect of it, but to also question why the poet used shringara at this point in time, in this dialogue of this character, etc... in other words, an attempt to probe deeper and understand what the poet was trying to convey. I belong to the latter group and feel that the purpose of shringara is not just literary embellishment.

      Let's start with a few of the points you raised now. You talked about Sita's abduction. The verse you referred to is likely this one (trans. by Desiraju Hanumanta Rao):

      ततः तु सा चारु दती शुचि स्मिता
      विना कृता बन्धु जनेन मैथिली |
      अपश्यती राघव लक्ष्मणाउ उभौ
      विवर्ण वक्त्रा भय भार पीडिता || ३-५२-४४

      She who is already detracted from her kinsfolk in Mithila or in Ayodhya, that Maithili with pretty teeth and clean-cut smile is then distanced from the only two last kinsmen, for either Raghava or Lakshmana or both are unseen by her, and thus her face is paled for she is chastened by the cumber of consternation. [3-52-44]

      So here, the traditional interpretation would be that Sita was being separated from her family, via her kidnap, and hence she was scared. Such an interpretation is lacking in my humble opinion, because it does not account for the mention of her pretty teeth and clean-cut smile. The verse implies that just preceding that moment (but still during the kidnap, since the verse was spoken well into the kidnap), she was displaying a bright smile that exposed her teeth. The traditional explanation does explain why she was smiling at that point in her kidnap.

      Now my interpretation is that she was smiling and somewhat elated that Ravana took the bait and decided to kidnap her, hence she was smiling. However, she then was struck with fear because she did not see Rama/Lakshmana and if they did not see her they would not know that she was kidnapped (her entire purpose of baiting Ravana to kidnap her was to fuel Raghava's rage and to give a moral justification for sacking Lanka and destroying the Rakshasa lineage). Without them seeing her, how would they know who stole her away, and whose territory they must invade to rescue her? Such were Sita's thoughts, in my interpretation.

    2. Sure, one may disagree with that, but there is much more evidence as well in the post. For example, why did Sita invite Ravana into her hermitage in VR 3.46.35, even after she realized that Ravana was a pseudo-sannyasi that was using deceit (upaaya) to fool her? What was going on in her mind? Right after Ravana gently proposed to her, and well before Ravana showed aggression or even mentioned kidnap, we see Sita lashing out at his proposal, and challenging him to kidnap/rape her, saying that he (Ravana) is far inferior to Rama and that if he dares to rape/kidnap her, he will die a terrible death at Rama's hand. What was going on in her mind to think of kidnap or even sex, even though Ravana had mentioned none of it, neither had his body language been of one to indicate (sexual) aggression?

      About my interpretation of the tail... sure it may seem very awkward, but in my opinion it is the most plausible (unless you have a better explanation, for which I would be all ears).

      The love of the Vanaras for their tail is quite established throughout the epic. For example, when Hanumana is about to fly/leap across to Lanka, in a state of excitement and aggression, he roars and then swirls his tail. When he reaches Lanka and looks for Sita, what he has in mind is that she was an extremely beautiful lady and hence tries to identify her by her beauty. He sees a beautiful Mandodari, and Valmiki spares a moment to then describe her beauty, after which Hanumana gets excited in the following manner:

      स ताम् दृष्ट्वा महा बाहुर् भूषिताम् मारुत आत्मजः |
      तर्कयाम् आस सीता इति रूप यौवन सम्पदा || ५-१०-५३
      हर्षेण महता युक्तो ननन्द हरि यूथपः |

      That Hanuma with great arms seeing the woman well decorated, out of logic thought thus: "This is Seetha by the wealth of her appearance and her youth". That warrior of Vanaras was delighted together with great pleasure.

      In response to this, which can best be categorized as sexual excitement (because of the constant references to Hanumana noticing her great beauty), he kisses his tail, which Valmiki describes in VR 5.10.54 as "कपीनाम् प्रक्र्तिम्" (the prakrti/natural behavior of a kapi/monkey/simian). This not only makes the association of tail to penis more likely (given him kissing it in sexual excitement), but also suggests that it was the prakriti of Vanaras to play with their tail and cherish it.

      Later, when Ravana captures Hanumana, he says:

      कपीनाम् किल लान्गूलम् इष्टम् भवति भूषणम् |
      तत् अस्य दीप्यताम् शीघ्रम् तेन दग्धेन गच्छतु || ५-५३-३

      "It is said that a tail is possibly a beloved ornament (इष्टम् भूषणम्) for the monkeys. Let his tail be burn immediately. Let him go with a burnt tail."

      Later, when Hanumana escapes Lanka and reunites with his Vanaras, we him roaring and waving his tail:

      स तम् देशमनुप्राप्तः सुहृद्दर्शनलालसः || ५-५७-१६
      ननाद हरिशार्दूलो लाङ्गूलम् चाप्यकम्पयत् |

      Having reached that place, Hanuma who was ardently desiraus of seeing his friends, roared and waved his tail.

      His Vanara friends responded by doing the same:

      केचित् उच्छ्रित लान्गूलाः प्रहृष्टाः कपि कुन्जराः |
      अन्चित आयत दीर्घाणि लान्गूलानि प्रविव्यधुः || ५-५७-४२

      Some eminent monkeys, with joy and with their tails lifted up, waved their distended curved tails.

      All this shows the great affection the Vanaras had for their tails... about seeing whether Hanumana's tail/penis is burned or not, the Vanara tribe was a naked, primitive tribe. Hence, that should not be an issue. As far as "kapi kunjara" is concerned, the translator in this link translates it as "elephant among kapis". It just emphasizes Hanumana's strength and his overarching personality.