The true identity of Jāmbavān - monkey or bear?

[V Subrahmanian]

It is not clear whether Jāmbavān was really a monkey or bear species.  Scholars may please throw light on the matter. 

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/jambavantha-race-ramayana-bears/

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This is one of those attempts to link the pauranic with real historical. There have been many attempts like this about many purANa and itihAsa characters. None matches the other.

 

Many human-like characters married the daughters of non-human-like characters not only in Indian mythology but in mythologies world over. This prompted researchers world over to link the species of thus married females to some real historical human race.

 

Many caste-origin/tribe-origin mythologies followed by the respective castes /tribes in India trace the origin of the caste/tribe to one of the mythological characters, some of them being these non-human-like characters. This too prompts people to think if these non-human-like characters are from some real ancient human race.

 

There is, in fact, a Dalit community which, through such 'caste-origin mythology' , traces its origin to Jambavan.  

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:48:27 PM UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

This is one of those attempts to link the pauranic with real historical. There have been many attempts like this about many purANa and itihAsa characters. None matches the other.

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:48 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not clear whether Jāmbavān was really a monkey or bear species.  Scholars may please throw light on the matter. 

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/jambavantha-race-ramayana-bears/

The linked article, replete with extrordinary scholarship, unfrotunately has no author information and is hosted on a website which does not name its sholarly editor(s). Furthermore, the About Us page on the website says:

Caledon-based digital entrepreneur who likes to be known just as Singh, has been running a Facebook page called SanskritiCultureOfIndia for almost a year now and has some 22000 people following it. Giving into the fan requests, he recently created an informative portal with the same information called www.sanskritmagazine.com.

Glad to know the article comes from the unparalleled scholar Mr. Singh in Caledon, who runs a popular Facebook page with 22000 followers! These are outstanding credentials I must say (only a summa cum laude from Harvard comes close I guess). I think this is one of the few websites that meets the highest quality standards for online sources. 

Here is a much less reliable source with another view: Puranic Encyclopedia (Vettam Mani, MLBD, 1975, p. 341):

[Footnote: 1) It is difficult to ascertain whether Jāmbavān was a monkey or a bear. In some of the Indian languages he is descri bed as a monkey. In Malayālaṁ he was thought of as a monkey from ancient period. In Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, which is the original work, Jāmbavān is denoted by the words ‘Kapi’ (monkey) and Rkṣa (bear). Jāmbavān is called Ṛkṣapuṅgava in Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa Bālakāṇḍa Sarga 17. From this it is to be assumed that Jāmbavān was a bear. In the same chapter it occurs that, it was the aim of Brahmā to make the gods and the celestial women take birth as monkeys to help Mahāviṣṇu in the incarnation of Śrī Rāma. So it is not wrong to consider Jāmbavān either as a bear or as a monkey.]  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr. Ajit once suggested that we have some humour during the weekends.

 

This is not a weekend. Still I enjoyed the satire, coming from AadaraNIya Nityanandji after a long gap.

 

I said, " This is one of those attempts to link the pauranic with real historical. There have been many attempts like this about many purANa and itihAsa characters. None matches the other."

 

with the intention of asking the list not to take such attempts seriously only.

 

But a pinching way of asking not to bring such sources for discussion at all was delicately nice.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Before going to Jāmbavān, it may help to look at Sugriva. Sugriva is called a monkey and his cave is said to be near Hampi in Karnataka and there was a forest,next to it in the ancient times. All this probably means that he was caveman, staying on the outskirts of a forest and got food for his family by gathering fruits and roots / tubers etc. from the forest. As regards his tail, it could be that he kept a rope (tied to his waist, which he could tie to the tree so that he would not fall from the tree, while gathering fruits. It could be that the other people called these cavemean  monkeys for living on forest-food and sporting the tails. The other people obviously were agrarian people and they did not have to depend on forest-food.the Anekunda village, near the Sugriva's cave, there are the Vant families, who claim to be descendents of Angad, the nephew of Sugriva, and these people are human being like all of us.

Now coming to Jāmbavān, he could have been a man living in karnataka, but he could have been more like a hairy man and did not sport a tail. He could have also been omnivorous like a bear, who takes plant food as well as small animals and insects. His cave was probably like a bear-den , which the bears needed for child-birth and rearing children. These could be the reason the man like him was called bear and not monkey. After the Ramayana times he could have shifted to the Porbandar area in Gujarat as it was there where he is said to have fought  with Lord Krishna and later on he  gave his daughter in marriage to the Lord.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Venkata Sriram]

Dear Sunil Ji,

There is a community in telangana called "mudiraj".  They derive their geneology from vanaras. 

http://mudiraja.com/mudiraju_vanaras.html

Now, what surprises and amazes me is the knowledge of Hanuman ji.  Even though a vanara, He had complete knowledge of 3 vedas and 9 vyakaranas.  So, this boils down to the question whether names "vanara", "jambavan" really denote a tribe or not / whether extinct or not ?

regs,
sriram

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr. Bhattacharya,

Can you please cite a resource for the interpretation? 

Currently I am particularly intrigued by the species 'rakhshasa"

which seem to be human-like creatures with strong body-build,
and are haughty and impulsive.   Some of them could disguise

themselves (possibly by dress and voice) to trick others.  They

possibly took delight in drinking animal blood including human.

I will appreciate any pointer.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

That is the best explanation of the vanara being cave-man, one can think of. After Mother Sita left, it is believed that, Sugriva offered his daughter Kalyani to Lord Ram. I do not have much details on that, but it surely means that Sugriva was a man and man only.  However Kala (time) Himself came to Lord Ram and told the latter that he spent 11,000 years (meaning 11,000 days) on the earth and that it was time that he left for his divine abode and the Lord had to cut short his stay on the earth.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sankara Narayanan]

Jambavan seems to be beer as gleened from iconography. Pallava's Trivikrama Panels from 7th CE have Jambavan with Bear face and body. Mahabalipuram (Ganesha Ratha) and Kanchipuram (Kailasanatha Temple) have the panels.

With regards
Dr. G.Sankaranarayanan

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

In that case Lord Krishna would have had a bear wife Satyabhama and her son Samba was half-bear half-man. Appears not to be a digestible situation.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:31 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

In that case Lord Krishna would have had a bear wife Satyabhama and her son Samba was half-bear half-man. Appears not to be a digestible situation.

There are stories about Bhima being given a Nāga princess in marriage in the Nāgaloka and Arjuna marrying a Nāga (serpent).  Hidimbā whom Bhima married was of the rākṣasa clan.  There are such cases of human-non-human marriages in the scriptures. 

subrahmanian.v    

[Vinayaka Rajat]

Namaste,
Bear wife is Jambavati no? Satyabhama is not Bearwife.

Dhanyavaadah
Vinayak Rajat Bhat

--

Bhat Vinayak Rajat M Ganesh

Contract Teacher

Department of Vyakarana

Rajiv Gandhi Campus

Sringeri - 577139

Karnataka

Mob - +919480005819

email -shurp...@gmail.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Yes, Thank you. That was a great slip. Bear wife was Jambavati and not Satyabhama.

Naga does not necessarily mean serpent only. Naga can mean a teacher and Lord Buddha was a Naga. Nagarjua was a chief of the Nagas, who, five centuries after the demise of Lord Buddha, decided to make public the esoteric teachings of Lord Buddha on the middle way. Naga can also mean people living in Hills.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Interesting discussion around the question whether Jambavan is bear or monkey. As far as I know he was a भल्लूक.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It could even be that Jambavana was a monkey but he and his followers could have chosen to wear  bearskin attire, to have an identity different from that of the monkeys of the Bali's kingdom. That is how he could have come to be known as the bear king.

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting discussion around the question whether Jambavan is bear or monkey. As far as I know he was a भल्लूक.

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you I think we can close this thread Jambavana is a bear ( भल्लूक)and there is nothing contradictory as far as my knowledge goes.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।