Here i will discuss & debunk all the incidents provided by hanu devotees which they believe makes him look mighty. Like him eating the SUN, or lifting the mountain of medicine or him making Ravan bleed or the BS claim of him being the vanara general or withstanding an assault from the brahmastra.
Link to the previous post here: https://logicastra.blogspot.com/2024/10/1-hanuman-losing-battles-in-yudh-kand.html
This post's actual title is "Putting a end to the hanumana topic [Part 7]"
=
STARTING THE POST.
A common claim of hanuman fans is "that same hanuma made ravan bleed with 1 punch":
Whenever hanu-bhakts or napunsak tards find themselves boxed into a corner with no way out they bring up this point all the time. The ultimate goal in bringing up this point is for them to deflect from something that simply can not be defended. In this case it is the weaknesses, flaws and poor fighting skills of hanumanji. This can not be defended so hanuman bhakts either lie all the time or give an illogical argument.
Krishna - who i judge based on his fighting skill's was made to bleed/swoon by simple arrows fired by Duhsasan & even the most overrated bhadva whose name is "Karna" if these 2 were able to do that to a top tier mard/warrior like Krishna then what is incredible about hanuman doing it to Ravan when he is offguard & focusing on Laxman's body?
Ravan was certainly not as powerful as Krishna. So the achievements those guys had in doing it to krishna should put them above Hanuman. Cause hanuman lost against ravan multiple times.
=
EVIDENCE FOR wounds of krishna.
3rd day:
"Bhishma with great strength pierced both Vasudeva and Dhananjaya with keen shafts all over their bodies. And mangled by those shafts of Bhishma, those two tigers among men looked like two roaring bulls with the scratches of horns on their bodies."
[end]
[again]
"The enraged Bhishma caused him of Vrishni's race to shiver."
Logic - here the reference to "vrishni's race" was for Krishna so dont pretend it was Cekitana or Satyaki or his 10 sons.
Duhsasana was the attacker in day 10.
[Quote]
"Dussasana in that battle pierced the son of Pandu with 3 arrows & Vasudeva with 20. Then Arjuna, excited with rage upon beholding him of Vrishni's race thus afflicted, pierced Dussasana with a hundred shafts."
[Done]
Injury's in Bhagawatam.
Rukmi achieved this.
[quote]
"Rukmī grabbed another bow and struck Lord Kṛṣṇa with five arrows. Although hit by these many arrows, Lord Acyuta again broke Rukmī’s bow."
[End]
Krishna's bow has been cut by king Shalva.
[Quote]
"Śālva then managed to strike Lord Kṛṣṇa’s left arm, which held His bow Śārṅga, and, amazingly, Śārṅga fell from His hand."
Logic; not just a simple bow but rather a divine-bow handled by a GOD himself, yet still it's felled by a underrated enemy. That too in which type of source? A purana (of all sources) which is biased in favor of Vaishnavism & sri krishna. Yet they admit Sri Krishna's bow had fallen.
=
Parshuram was knocked out by bhishma's attack: "I shot at Rama a powerful and heart-piercing arrow endued with great speed. Afflicted with that shaft, Rama then, his bow loosened from his grasp, fell down upon the earth on his knees, reft of consciousness!"
Elephant's were able to tank/with-stand his attack.
Act of Bhishma: "The son of Santanu made the terraces of many cars empty, that best of car-warriors showering arrows, cut off many heads. Endued with energy equal to that of the Sun himself, he shrouded the very Sun with his arrows. And he removed his enemies from around him in that combat like the rising Sun dispelling the darkness around. And in that battle, O king, arrows were shot by him in hundreds and thousands that were powerful and possessed of great impetuosity and that took in that conflict the lives of numberless Kshatriyas. And in that combat he felled heads, by hundreds, of heroic warriors, O king, and elephants cased in thorny mail, like summits of mountains by heaven's bolt."
Survival of elephants: "Infuriate elephants rushed hither and thither, and car-warriors by hundreds were slain. And car-warriors, along with their cars, were crushed on all sides."
Logic - if a elephant rushes then thats a clue to the fact a elephant was alive so the arrows of bhishma are not fatal.
Conclusion; parshuram's durability remains inferior to a elephant of the pandav army.
Hanutati himself was bleeding a couple of times in ramayana.
(1st-Example) Devi Lankini knocked Hanuman out:
"Thereafter that Lanka made a great sound causing terror and hit Hanuma, the best among Vanaras, with her palm quickly. Then that tiger among Vanaras, the powerful son of Vayu, being hit powerfully by Lanka made a great sound. Thereafter that Hanuma became dizzy with anger and folded his fingers of left hand."
http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/sundara/sarga3/sundara_3_frame.htmLogic - don't talk about hanutati beating her later pay attention to how hanutati got swooned & became dizzy, how he was knocked out like a wimp.
Other example/incident; "The two generals stood by the side of the illustrious Hanuma. Praghasa pierced Hanuma with a sharp-pointed spear and Bhasakarna attacked him with a dart. With his limbs wounded by those two demons, that Hanuma with his body-hair anointed by blood, became enraged, with his blaze similar to that of a rising sun."
Conclusion: not just the personalities of god-head (parshuram/krishna) but even hanuman undergoes pain during a battle.
So nothing impressive in Ravan bleeding just cause hanutati did a sneak attack on ravan when ravan was busy lifting a weight (laxman).
=
TAIL CHAPTER.
The achievement of his tail being too heavy for Bheem to lift should be addressed now. Their exist's a minor possibility of Bhima holding back during his attempt of lifting Hanuman's tail (he was not using his full physical might).
1st reason is that Hanu spoke respectfully to Bhima so Bhima would not behave in an agressive manner towards him.
Evidence:
'Out of kindness, O hero, do I dissuade thee. Do thou hearken unto my words. Thou canst not proceed further from this place. Therefore, O lord, do thou desist. O chief of men, to-day in very way thou art welcome to this place.'
Logic - hanu adressed bheem as a hero. If a person spoke respectfully to you then you would not wish to cause them any real harm, the same mindset could be bheem's here.
The other reason he might've been holding back is cause hanuman was a user of illusion/magic (maya). Which shall be explained later in this very post itself.
Bhima's attempt:
'Then with both arms he pulled it, resembling the pole reared in honour of Indra. Still the mighty Bhima could not raise the tail with both his arms. And his eye-brows were contracted up, and his eyes rolled, and his face was contracted into wrinkles and his body was covered with sweat; and yet he could not raise it. And when after having striven, the illustrious Bhima failed in raising the tail, he approached the side of the monkey, and stood with a bashful countenance.'
Reason provided by hanutati;
[quote]
"O son of the Kurus, this path is impassable to mortals. For this, O Bharata, as also with the view that none might defeat or curse thee, have I obstructed thy passage to this path trod by the immortals. This is one of the paths to heaven, for the celestials; mortals cannot pass this way."
Basically their was no way hanuman would allow his dear brother (Bheem) risk his life or potentially die trying to cross a forbidden path (guarded by hanutati).
Inconsistency that occur's immediately after:
"The monkey with his arms again embraced Bhimasena. And O Bharata, on Bhima being embraced by his brother, his fatigue went off, and all (the powers of body) as also his strength were restored. And having gained great accession of strength, he thought that there was none equal to him in physical power. And with tears in his eyes, the monkey from affection again addressed Bhima in choked utterance."
Logic - this quote is proof that bheem was tired if bheem was not fatigued then this quote implies that hanutati was the one who is tired.
The quote has other important facts to consider, it shows that Hanuman hugged bheem, so imagine how much the weight of Hanuman's chest/abdomen were compared to his tail? Logically its heavier than his own tail correct?
Modern calculation; "20-25% of the weight is occupied by the chest 25-30% of the weight is occupied by the abdomen."
=
Possible reason behind bheem failing:
Obsessed bhakts of hanutati will try to paint this incident as 1-sided by making it look like the tail part of hanu's body was very light compared to the full-weight of his body. The bitter fact is probably that hanutati used magic to make his tail much heavier than it normally is to make it unmovable. A similar power is wielded by Suyodhana too, he could hold his breath for a extended time period & he could make (water in a lake) still (immobile/frozen). While yudisther had his own magic/maya powers. Its possible for hanuman to also have similar abilities because this incident occurred a very long time after the story of Ramayana ended.
Type of magic:
Either hanuman made his tail immobile (still/moveless) or he increased its weight to a maximum degree or the 3rd option (he tricked bheem via mind control into thinking he was using his full power when he was really using only a fraction.
Yudisther could change his own body-weight; "Do ye not entertain any fear of this wretched Rakshasa, I have checked his speed." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03156.htm
Word's of vaisampayana: 'Yudhishthira made himself ponderous to the Rakshasa. And being oppressed with the weight, he could not proceed rapidly as before.'
Note; Jatasura lifted yudisther, the twins & Droupadi together (all 4 people) up before but now somehow just yudisther alone became too heavy of a load to carry/abduct, so clearly foul play is involved here, yudisther's bodyweight/mass grew somehow.
By the time of MB Hanutati had the ability to disappear, vanish & re-appear.
Quote 1: 'Having said this unto Pandu's son, and also pointed him out the way. Hanuman vanished at that spot.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03150.htm
Quote 2; 'When that foremost of monkeys had gone away, Bhima, the best of strong men, began to range the huge Gandhamadana along that path.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03151.htm
Conclusion - all this clearly hints that hanuman had magical abilities, so him being able to change the weight of his tail or him tricking bheem into believing fake lies (he could convince bheem that he was utilizing his full power to lift the tail but the truth is bheem was not using his full power) is definitely a possibility.
Evidence Bhima was not at his full power:
"And as he drank of the waters, like unto nectar, his energy and strength were again fully restored; and he fell to plucking and gathering Saugandhika lotuses of excellent fragrance."
[complete]
Logic - this quote is after the meeting with hanuman it proves that Bhima needed to regain power/stamina he formerly lost.
Other possible reasons why "Bheem could not move or lift his tail":
1 - The battle with kubera's krodha vasa sena happened before hanuman met Bhima, but the narrator (Souti/Vaisampayan) got events mixed up so the chronology has been badly affected but point is that Bhima would be tired or wounded after this battle so he was not at full physical strength.Countering any BS claim that hanubhakt supporters have made below (they believe that warriors do not get fatigued, tired or exhausted in a battle). Here is the debunk before i move on to the next reason why bheem failed to lift his tail.
Raam was tired of walking & running because he had to roam several areas in AryaVarth.
[Quote]
"Greatly fatigued, Rama (Scion of Kakutstha) accompanied by Seetha as the third (Lakshmana being the second) who was accustmed to all comforts, happily spent that night at the lovely hermitage of Bharadwaja."
[End]
Hanuman gets tired very easily.
[Quote]
"The son of Air-god Hanuma whose glossiness is like that of a mountaintop and who is a mastermind in scrutinising every inscrutable forest, then spoke to all of the formidable Vanara-s. We all have searched the southern quarter including those places that are enmeshed with meshes of mountains, and we are overly fatigued, but Maithili is unnoticed."
[End]
Proof pandavas would become tired:
Quote;
"O king, a confidential agent of mine residing in Dwaraka came to me. He had seen Arjuna, that foremost of Pandu's sons. Indeed, the latter has been very much emaciated with the fatigue of many battles. O puissant monarch, that agent of mine informed me that the mighty-armed hero is very near to us."
[end]
Note - Arjuna is the toughest pandava brother so this passage is confirmation that even bheem could become tired.
Proof (that Arjuna was tougher than Bhima);
"Amongst all the Parthas, Phalguna is the strongest."
Quote;
"Both Nakula & Sahadeva are fatigued, having fought with the wretched Dhartarashtras and their followers!"
Logic: This quote is from before duryodhan hit sahadeva in the head with a lance only for ulook to the do the same. Sahadeva earlier proved his power against a vanar superior to hanutati called "Mainda"
=
Droupadi was tired of traveling;
Krishna addressed Yudhishthira, saying "We see footpaths here, and various fields. From this it appears that Virata's metropolis is still at a distance. Pass we here what part of the night is still left, for great is my fatigue."
Dhritrashtra praises her;
[Quote]
"O Radheya, they are mighty warriors and naturally able, they are now devoted to ascetic austerities. King Yudhishthira will not suffer his wrath to be awakened, but Bhimasena is naturally passionate. The daughter of Yajnasena is energy's self. Full of pride and folly, ye are certain to give offence. Endued with ascetic merit she will certainly consume you, or perhaps, those heroes, armed with swords and weapons!"
"Nor, if from force of numbers, ye seek to injure them in any respect, that will be a highly improper act, although, as I think, ye will never be able to succeed."
"The mighty-armed Dhananjaya hath returned thence to the forest. While unaccomplished in arms, Vivatsu had subjugated the whole earth before. A mighty warrior as he is and accomplished in arms now, will he not be able to slay you all?"
[End]
Comment; he warns karna & believes even droupadi might be a threat for him. Point here is that she was believed to be a serious fighter more dangerous than angaraja yet she was vulnerable to becoming tired.
Ashwathama was a victim of tireness too:
"Those car-warriors headed by Kripa, filled with grief, took leave of the king & went away to a place far removed from that spot. Having proceeded far, they beheld a banyan under whose shade they stopped, greatly tired & exceedingly anxious about the king."
{ending}
A trio of brave warriors that were deemed maharathis, two were brahmins that practiced semen retention (they were bachelors) still end up craving beverages.
Quote;
"They themselves became thirsty. Overpowered by wrath and vindictiveness, those great bowmen could not put up with what had occurred, burning as they did with the slaughter of the king."
More evidence;
"Heavy with sleep, they laid themselves down on the bare earth. They had been exceedingly tired & greatly mangled with shafts. The two great car-warriors, Kripa & Kritavarma, succumbed to sleep."
Logic - Kritvarman defeated Bheem twice on day fourteen. So a warrior greater than bheem was vulnerable to fatigue.
Hanuman was tired so easily:
"He again continued his flight. But, he very soon became weak and exhausted. Then Mount Maināka emerged from the ocean and fed Hanūmān with fruits and roots. He reached Laṅkā at dusk."
{end}
Conclusion: so not hard in thinking that bhima would become tired too. Or that guru Drona was tired at day 14.
=
WHY HE FAILED TO LIFT THE TAIL;
2 - Indonesian Mahabharat is more authentic/reliable so its version of events is correct & the kmg/bori version is fake. Basically their Bheem & Hanumana just kick eachother they do not engage in a tail movement challenge.
Reference]
"In the long final scene, Bima angrily marches forth and meets Hanoman, who kicks him over. Bima then does the same to Hanoman. Their divine father Beiyu intervenes to reconcile them. Beiyu has exactly the same form as Bima except for the god-spot on his forehead."
[End]
Logic work's - that their was no win or loss, they had a draw.
In Ramayan this Hanutati's whole body was dragged around by foot soldier's.
[Quote]
"That Ravana, who was endowed with an extraordinary energy, saw Hanuma the foremost of monkeys, being dragged hither and thither by demons."
Bheem is not inferior to the lankan infantry men, so him being unable to drag or move Hanuman's tail makes no sense at all.
I incline to agree with indonesian mahabharat here as for this incident it makes much more sense.
=
3rd reason is that this tail incident could be a mistranslated one.
Clues in Mahabharat.
This chapter said Bhima had a fight with hanuman:
{Quote}
"Bhima's meeting on his way, in a grove of bananas, with Hanuman, the son of Pavana of great prowess; Bhima's bath in the tank and the destruction of the flowers therein for obtaining the sweet-scented flower his consequent battle with the mighty Rakshasas and the Yakshas of great prowess including Hanuman; the destruction of the Asura Jata by Bhima; the meeting with the royal sage Vrishaparva; their departure for the asylum of Arshtishena and abode therein: the incitement of Bhima by Draupadi. Then is narrated the ascent on the hills of Kailasa by Bhimasena, his terrific battle with the mighty Yakshas headed by Hanuman; then the meeting of the Pandavas with Vaisravana."
Logic - since kmg vana parva does not describe any physical duel it only describes an attempt of lifting his tail that either means this quote (from Adi Parva) is unreliable/fake or it means that the text of Vana Parva was tampered with.
Other issues with the text: hanumana was clearly a vanara not a rakshas or yaksha, but he gets lumped in with both groups in the quote.
4th reason for why bhima failed to lift hanumans tail; Maybe his expertise in lifting came down to push strength and not pull strength. Pulling is different from pushing.
The only other reason i can think of is that the whole incident of him trying to lift hanu's tail & failing in doing so) is a interpolation so that is why it makes no sense.
=
Even if hanuman did overpower or defeat or humiliate bheem then it is not important because of the fact that bheem was not what he is commonly believed by hindus & indians to be, meaning he is not physically the "most powerful man" alive in mahabharat at all, he did not possess the most physical strength in any way.
Many other characters existed who possessed the strength of ten thousand elephants like king Paurava, Jarasandha etc, surely jarasandha could not have been very far from bheem when he was able to put up a fight for fourteen days straight. Even duryodhan is mentioned to have that much strength (10,000 elephants).
Identity of the puru king. According to puranas his name was "Venudari" (friend to Emperor Jarasandha) and in Mahabharat his name was "Viswagaswa" (individual whose conquered and subjugated in the rajasuya war by pandavas).
Quote:
"So also king Paurava who was endued with the might of 10,000 elephants, hath, with all his followers, been slain by Pandu's son Arjuna."
Quote:
"Thence, surrounded by the kings and the peoples he had subjugated, the hero marched against king Viswagaswa that bull of Puru's race. Having vanquished in battle the brave mountaineers, who were all great warriors, the son of Pandu, O king, then occupied with the help of his troops, the town protected by the Puru king."
Maharaj Dhritrashtra;
"Dhritarashtra sought for Bhima, like a blazing fire ready to burn everything that would approach it. Indeed, that fire of his wrath, fanned by the wind of his grief, seemed then to be ready to consume the Bhima-forest. Ascertaining the evil intentions cherished by him towards Bhima, Krishna, dragging away the real Bhima, presented an iron statue of the second son of Pandu to the old king."
"Understanding that thou wert filled with rage, O bull of Bharata’s race, I dragged the son of Kunti away from within the jaws of Death. O tiger among kings, there is none equal to thee in strength of body. What man is there, O mighty-armed one, that would endure pressure of thy arms? Indeed, as no one can escape with life from an encounter with the Destroyer himself, even so no body can come out safe from within thy embrace. It was for this that yonder iron statue of Bhima, which had been caused to be made by thy son, had been kept ready for thee."
Logic - even if we assume that krishna's praise was a exaggeration it still does not change the fact he believed dhritrashtra could kill bheem (assuming that bheem was off guard & would not keep his muscles/bones tightened when dhritrashtra hugs/embraces him) still dhritrashtra can be considered one of the top men when it came to physical strength in the epic, if not the toughest (like Krishna said) then at least in the top ten.
10,000 elephant strength is not exclusive to Bhima:
"Others (of their class) possessed strength equal to that of ten thousand elephants. Others, again, were endued with the impetuosity and might of the very wind. They have all perished in battle, slain by men of their own class. I do not behold the person (save one of their own class) who could slay any of them in battle."
Comment: clearly yudhisthir mentioned that many warriors had the power of 10,000 elephants.
Bhishma restrained vrikodara;
Bhimasena began to grind his teeth in rage, the monarchs beheld his face resembling that of Death himself, at the end of the Yuga, prepared to swallow every creature. And as the hero endued with great energy of mind was about to leap up impetuously, the mighty-armed Bhishma caught him like Mahadeva seizing Mahasena. And, O Bharata, Bhima's wrath was soon appeased by Bhishma, the grand-sire of the Kurus, with various kinds of counsel. And Bhima, that chastiser of foes, could not disobey Bhishma's words. But, O king, even though Bhima was angry, the brave Sisupala depending on his own manhood, did not tremble in fear. And though Bhima was leaping up impetuously every moment, Sisupala bestowed not a single thought on him, like a lion that recks not a little animal in rage. The powerful king of Chedi, beholding Bhima of terrible prowess in such rage, laughingly said "Release him, O Bhishma! Let all the monarchs behold him scorched by my prowess like an insect in fire." Hearing these words of the ruler of the Chedis, Bhishma, that foremost of the Kurus and chief of all intelligent men, spoke unto Bhima.
Explained; Bheem was being egged on & repeatedly provoked by sisupala so it makes no sense for him to just allow bhishma to keep him in check even if he wanted his grandfather's reputation/honor to be kept safe. The reason being that if Bheem was truly that concerned of the type of pain he could commit against bhishma then a easy solution is to lie to him & say "hey pitamah i promise i will not attack sisupal or fall for his taunts, but release me i need to go to the bathroom" then bhishma would set him free & seeking a moment bheem could easily get near sisupal and attack him. But he choose to do neither and the reason was cause bheem was physically incapable of releasing himself out of bhishma's grasp here.
I have already explained arjuna's superiority over bhima so i will not repeat it.
Conclusion - So just cause hanuman was better compared to Bhima that does not mean he was better than other mahabharat warriors when it came to physical strength.
=
Rubbish claim of hanu bhakt's - "He survived the brahmastra"
Reply: I will explain why this is not impressive.
Because Vibhishana & even Jambavan also survived it.
[Quote]
"Looking at Jambavan, the son of Brahma, who was naturally bequeathed with old age, an elderly person, with his body conspicuous of hundreds of arrows and a valiant person looking like an extinguishing fire, Vibhishana approached him and spoke."
[End]
Logic - hanutati probably just ducked behind a rock or tree while Indrajit's weapons were being casted on the field.
It's stated he shot golden maces & arrows at hanu/other vanaras not brahmastra:
[Begin] "Tearing asunder the principal monkey-warriors by maces and arrows, which were of golden colour, that Indrajit rained a multitude of showers of arrows equal to sun's rays on Rama and Lakshmana." [complete]
Comment - it'd appear like the story of him using brahmastra against hanuman (during yuddh kanda not sundara) was invented by devotees to make hanuman's loss look less embarrassing.
A mace doesn't come out of the brahmastra. So it can be guessed that he only used it against Raam/Laxman. If a character is not the target of Meghanada's brahmastra then it becomes easy for that character to survive it.
The Sundar Kanda part has been addressed before, the reason of hanutati surviving was due to a 2nd restraint/bind placed upon him, it was the casual goof/mistake done by foot soldier's that resulted in him being safe. But hanuman was not grateful to the foot soldiers for doing that for him.
Here it is again;
Sarga 48 "That powerful Hanuma, tied with those chords of hemp and bark, was relieved of the missile, since the bondage of that missile does not indeed coexist with another bondage." Sarga 51 "Hanuma, liberated from the missile being dragged away by the demons and afflicted by the ties of ropes, could not realize that he was liberated from the missile."
=
Hanu's peak lifting achievement is overrated:
"And the youthful monarch was endued with wonderful prowess and a physical frame hard as the thunderbolt, so that he could, taking up the mountain Mandara with its forests and bushes, support it on his arms."
Maybe his physical lifting strength was greater compared to Hanutati. Cause hanu lifted a small peak but not a hill or a mountain.
Ghatotkatch could easily use magic to make himself appear to be a mountain:
"He assumed the form of a high mountain, crowded with cliffs and trees, and possessing fountains from which ceaselessly flowed spears and lances and swords and heavy clubs. Beholding that mountain-like mass of antimony, with countless weapons falling from it, Drona's son was not at all moved. The latter invoked into existence the Vajra weapon. The prince of mountains, then, struck with that weapon, was quickly destroyed."
Lifting mountains is not a great or impressive achievement. Unless the mountain which is referenced is 1 of the ultra level mountains, like Mandara (where Shiva resided once) or Mahameru.
Arjuna as Nara was capable of doing this;
"Ye both, by your might, hold the universe."
So his physical strength was more than just holding a planet, since the universe means more than just a solar system.
=
Hanuman being on the flag or chariot/umbrella of Arjuna is fake, but his devotees will say that he protected Arjuna or was seated on a flag-staff device/part of the vehicle. I have already made a post (multiple years earlier) detailing which times, chapter's, incident's & battles this "ape" was mentioned.
Guess what? Never was the name of "maruti" or "hanuma" stated in those chapters.
So i reached the obvious conclusion's that it was EITHER a different ape (possibly Mainda cause he was the only other vanara still alive) OR it was a illusion of Vishwakarma (a fake manifestation of a vanara to intimidate a warrior that is on the-opposite-side of the battlefield).
My post however had only analyzed the quotes from Kurukshetra but not the possibility of the ape being present on Arjuna's chariot during Rajasuya Parva, Virata Parva etc.
Below is a list of possible 'counter-quotes' that might be used by hanuman bhakts. I will also provide a list of debunks that i have come-up with.
1 [begin]
"Arjuna having on his banner the sign of devastator of the gardens of Lanka's lord."
[eNd]
Debunk; this only means the spokesperson think's the ape is a individual who burned garden's of lanka it is not a way of them claiming they think its Hanuman. Reason being that lanka was burnt in yuddh kanda too, their were many vanaras apart from hanumana who were involved.
{Quote}
"When the troops of monkeys, with torches in their hands, attacked Lanka on all sides, the diversely eyed demons who were holding the position of guards, suddenly fled away. Those monkeys, feeling gladdened, threw fire to the towering gates, attics, streets, various byways and mansions. Then, the fire consumed thousands of houses of demons. Mansions of mountainous forms fell down on the ground."
{completE}
Analysis; no names have been stated to identify the vanaras that committed the burning apart from Sugriva & hanutati.
From this: 'Seeing those monkey-chiefs, standing at the gate, with flaming torches in their hands, Ravana was enraged with fury.'
Logic - it can be assumed that clearly their were more than just 2 vanaras that did the burning so nothing wrong with my point of assuming that the MB character was referring to a different vanara who may have burned the gardens of lanka.
For those who believe that garden's were not burned;
"That City of Lanka at night with its house-tops being burnt ablaze with flames, looked like Kimshuka trees in full bloom."
Conclusion; it was not hanuman who was referred too by the MB character.
Even if it's assumed the spokesman believed that apart from hanutati nobody else had burned lanka then still a different argument could be provided in return that the image on top of the flag looked like hanumana but was not really him, instead it was a ape who had identical appearance.
Or it was a illusion of vishwakarma (that would convince onlookers that hanu was present on the vehicle).
=
Proof the animal or ape/vanara/painting/portrait associated with arjuna's chariot/flag was not hanumana himself.
Narrative: "Varuna also gave two inexhaustible quivers, and he also gave a car furnished with celestial weapons and whose banner bore a large ape."
Note - just ape is stated nothing about it being hanumana or a son of vayu dev.
Passage of text; "And there sat upon that flag-staff a celestial ape of form fierce like that of a lion or a tiger. Stationed on high, the ape seemed bent upon burning everything it beheld. And upon the (other) flags were various creatures of large size, whose roars and yells caused the enemy's soldiers to faint." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01228.htm
Basic's - hanuman was not mentioned by name here either, also this's proof their were other creatures (or drawings of creatures) on the staff or flag of arjuna's chariot, so the ape/vanara was not the only beast who was present. You could also carefully read the battles of virata parva & kurukshetra, nowhere did this 'ape of arjuna's vehicle' BURN any of his opponents during a fight with them.
Rajsooya Yudh.
Quote;
"Making this earth tremble with the sound of his drums, the clatter of his chariot-wheels, and the roar of the elephants in his train."
[completed] https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02026.htm
Note - here attention was only given to the roars of elephants in arjuna's army, not a random ape from the flagstaff of his chariot.
Gandharv War: 'Pandavas thus cased in mail, and mounted on those chariots furnished with flagstaffs and armed with bows and arrows, looked like blazing fires.' https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03242.htm
Note; where is the special importance to the banner of arjuna's chariot? Maybe cause it was not special in anyway Vaisampayan/Souti refused to elaborate upon the vehicle or it's flag this time.
=
Apes can be summoned by roudrastra: "as soon as it had been hurled, there appeared on the scene by thousands, forms of deer, and of lions, and of tigers, and of bears and of buffaloes, and of serpents, and of kine, and of sarabhas, and of elephants, and of apes in multitudes."
[end quote]
Logic; It's entirely a possibility the ape on arjuna's flag-staff was one that manifested as a result of a roudrastra that either Arjuna himself or a different being utilized. This could easily happen as Krishna, Shiva both possessed the weapon.
Here apes were mentioned as living alongside gandharvas of Kuber's empire;
[Start] "And they also saw hillocks teeming with various minerals, thronged with Vidyadharas, inhabited on all sides by monkeys and Kinnaras and Kimpurushas, and Gandharvas, and filled with peacocks, and chamaras, and apes, and rurus, and bears, and gavayas, and buffaloes, intersected with a network of rivulets, and inhabited by various birds and beasts, and beautified by elephants, and abounding in trees and enraptured birds."
Comment - after the word chamaras & before the word rurus. Maybe one of them was the portrait of the vanara decorated as the banner of Arjuna's vehicle.
Garood was on arjuna's flag;
"And Agni gave unto the son of Pritha the excellent bow Gandiva and a quiver that was inexhaustible, and a war-chariot bearing the figure of Garuda on its standard."
So it was not hanuman. Rather it was garuda instead, yet hindus gave all credit to hanumana instead.
=
Hanuman alternating or shapeshifting his physical size is not impressive.
Iravan also edited his own form/appearance:
"That Naga, O king, assumed a huge form mighty as Ananta himself. With diverse kinds of Nagas then he covered the Rakshasa."
Logic - he basically turned himself into seshnaag (who is at minimum superior to hanutati).
A user of antardhan astra could do it.
[Quote]
"By the Antardhana weapon all these were made to disappear. Now the beloved one of his preceptor (Arjuna) appeared tall and now short; now he was seen on the yoke of his car, and now on the car itself; and the next moment he was on the ground."
[Ending]
Basically - Karna, Drona, Arjuna all three had the weapon so they could also change their own form, appearance/physicality.
=
Claim of hanubhakt's "he ate the entire sun itself aka Surya Dev".
Debunk:
Sarga 21 "Thereafter, when you were a boy you have see the just risen sun in the vast of forest, and deeming it to be a just ripen reddish fruit, and thinking it to be a best catch, you hopped up and flew towards sun on the sky."
Sarga 22 "Even on your flying up three hundred yojana-s, oh, brave monkey, and even when sun's radiation puffed and blown you down, you did not get into any anguish as were indefatigable."
Sarga 23 "Oh, mighty monkey, even on seeing you who are coming near the vault of heaven, Indra is captivated by anger and by his effulgence he catapulted his Thunderbolt at you."
Sarga 24 "Then, your left cheekbone, zygomatic arch, is broken when you fell down on a highest mountaintop, from thereupon your name-phrase is indeed averred as Hanumaan."
{Ending]
Logic - clearly its stated that he only made an attempt but failed in doing so, he did not eat, consume, swallow, or chow down upon the sun itself.
People say hanuman is a god because many people believe him to be one. Well my reply to that is their are even more people who worship "Allah" & prophet Muhammad, and Jesus Christ. These 3 infact have more followers than all gods in hindu religion/sanatan dharma combined.
Point - number's dont mean everything. Just having more followers than Indra will not make Hanuman more divine. Hanuman is factually not a god but Indra is one.
Him not being a form, son, amsha/avtaar (of Lord Shiva) has already been explained by me in a former post from 2021;
Reminder - hanuman having bhakt's or temples or devotees does not mean anything. The amount of supporter's that this namard hanuman has is irrelevant, it's not a valid point. Their are more Muslim's and Christian's than their are Hindus. Numbers dont decide which religion is best in life. Hanuman was never labelled a god as per Ramayana or Mahabharat.
Neither was he some incredible warrior as his bhakt's hype him up to be.
I have not used any gaalis or disrespectful language in this post the only exception being that i have called him "hanutati" as opposed to his true name. But overall i did well & was civil for most of the time in the post.
No comments:
Post a Comment
?