|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Do we need nationalists' statements in Etymology?
- 2 Since when did Ravana had multiple arms
- 3 "evil" and "demon"?
- 4 Even a Tyrant may have some good qualities but still is a bad person.
- 5 Notion of Ravana as good is recent byproduct mostly of Dravidian movement
- 6 Ravana is evil in ayya-vazhi
- 7 Ravana
- 8 Asura
- 9 Ravana and Jain Religion
- 10 Indonesian's version??
- 11 Restructuring the article
- 12 Adamantium, Really?
- 13 Ravana's Daughter and Niece
- 14 who was meghnath??
- 15 Book
- 16 Who is Ravanan?
- 17 File:RavanKailashAndolan.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 18 Ravana Sri Lanka and Sinahalese , neutrality
- 19 Ravana/Ravanan was a Tamil Saivaite Emperor
- 20 Hindustan times as reliable source
- 21 Tamil King
- 22 SITA as CAPTIVE
- 23 Lanka's identity with Sri Lanka is impossible
Do we need nationalists' statements in Etymology?
According to Sinhalese nationalists, the name Ravana (or Ravaṇa) means "Sun race", as Ra signifies the Sun and vana signifies generation. According to lankan folk stories other means for Ravana is (Ra + Vana => Raksha + Vana) see after the jungle.
Since when did Ravana had multiple arms
I thought he only had multiple heads he is from the Asura Tribe of lanka.
"evil" and "demon"?
S.R.Aniruddha (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Ravana is not of any tribe as mentioned in the above, he is an ASURA meaning a demon n in the vedic ages there were only 2 kinds of people, 1. Suras (good ones) and 2.Asuras (bad ones)S.R.Aniruddha (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems that describing Ravana "evil" and calling him a "demon" is hardly neutral. It is merely the view expressed in Ramayana. Ravana is viewed in many parts of the world as a good king and a scholar (as the article does metion). Thus it seems that the article is a Rama-centric view of Ravana.
The page could be edited to indicate the following:
1. Ravana is viewed by some, including Rama devotees, as a symbol of evil.
2. Many view Ravana as a good king and the destruction of Lanka as wanton.
3. Moralizing such "piety without virtue is useless" should be avoided in the Ravana article. If that was Valmiki's opinion, then it must be cited with source. The article is not supposed to be an editorial on Ravana. I can equally well write "Rama's lesson teaches us that even if we indulge in gratuitous violence by burning down an entire island, some people may build temples for us." But such opinions, as all will agree, do not belong in the article.
In vast regions of South and Southeast Asia, the "evil" painting of Ravana is considered as a modern continuation of an ancient lame attempt at cultural superiority. The portrayal of Ravana in this article doeesn't seem to be neutral.
--Poda 22:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There. Now are you happy?
- elvenscout742 20:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
l. In which countries is Ravana viewed as good? In Thailand, and Indonesia and all parts of the world, Ravana is viewed as evil in their versions of ramayana. So it's not just an Indian point of view. see below discussion of why Ravana is considered to be a bad person.
Mr. Poda makes a statement without showing support. If he has specific countries in mind, please add.
Raj2004 14:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
In this article itself shows a picture of King Ravana as a guardian of a temple in Thailand. If he is considered as a evil king by Thailand people, They'll never build his statue as a guardian for a temple. And also since Ramayana is a popular book for hundred of years, even if Ravana was a good person, what Ramayanaya says becomes almost truth and everyone believe it. I have heard a saying "When someone tell a lie thousand times, it becomes a truth". In Ramayana itself says why Ravana kidnapped Sitha, it is because Rama had punished Ravana's sister. And also Ramayana says Ravana had not tried to marry seetha byforce and She had to and had proved she had not broken her 'pathi wurtha'(chastity) . If Ravana was evil, he surely do what he want byforce. And In the last case, Since Seetha had to prove her chastity by jumping to a fire, I think the evil man is the Rama who even didn't trust his beloved wife. Manjula.aw (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong in Sri Lanka we know that Ravana is a good Man.
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this talk page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ravana
King Ravana of Sri Lanka is well-known in myth and legend and the story of Rama and Sita as told in the epic poem, the Indian Ramayana, which is depicted in theatre and dance in India, Thailand, and on the island of Bali in Indonesia all demonize Ravana as the evil demon who was vanquished by the hero, Rama, revered throughout India to this day as a god.
The fact of the matter is that king Ravana was a remarkable monarch, so remarkable that he is part of the folklore of Sri Lanka where the humblest villager in the remotest hamlet respects his memory as a beneficent human being, neither a god nor a demon.
The ‘demonization’ of a formidable adversary who was defeated because of the treachery of his brother, Vibhushana, who betrayed him and changed sides is the substance of the epic poem. That paved the way to making Rama of Ayodhya a hero and a god and a part of the Hindu pantheon. The utter destruction visited upon the Island of Sri Lanka almost erased the memory of its greatest king, Ravana, and it is his story, reconstructed from fragments that survive in the memory of this Island’s inhabitants.
In South and Southeast Asia the legend of Râvana, demon-king of Sri Lanka is very much alive – and well! But then, is it legend? Or is it truth twisted by time and circumstance into myth and legend?
You could walk into the humblest home in the remotest hamlet in Sri Lanka and find echoes of king Ravana. Tales of his prowess as a greatly renowned physician; his inventive genius as an aeronaut; his courage as a brave warrior and his graciousness as an outstanding gentleman are legion.
He is credited with going all the way to Ayodhya in the Valley of the Ganges to abduct and bring back the alluringly beautiful Sita, wife of Rama, the legendary god-king of Bharath, (India).
Across the wide expanse of the Indian Ocean, in Thailand and Kampuchea and on the Island of Bali in the Indonesian archipelago, the story immortalized by Valmiki in his epic poem, the Ramayana forms the core element of the cultures of these countries as expressed in their exquisite dance-theatre.
Myth or legend? Fiction? I think not.
Here is a great warrior-king who terrorized his enemies, a genius in his day and age who bestrode his island kingdom like a colossus. His exploits were many and hence, indelibly fixed in the minds of simple, ordinary people of whom he is well beloved and no ‘demon’ as made out by the writer of the poem, Valmiki, two thousand years after the alleged happenings in his epic version of the events. This story, which became a folk-tale has been retold for perhaps, hundreds of generations in an oral tradition that goes back at least four thousand years – and that’s a lot of time during which a tale could have been embroidered in the telling and re-telling as little details were added or forgotten according to the imagination and skill of the teller of tales.
According to scholars researching antiquity and reconstructing the past, Râvana lived in 2,357 BCE. That’s a long, long time ago and obscured by the significant lack of written records that have survived to the present era. Folk tales and poems or stories written thousands of years after the events are all we have to go on but the collective memory of human beings has endured the ravages of time and circumstance and helps us to believe that there is a core of ineradicable truth to the fact that such a remarkable individual did, indeed, live once upon a time.
How advanced was the world at that time? According to a passage in the Rig-veda, 2 describing the war between the Suras and Asuras3 chillingly describe an unbelievable event: “They hurled their shining shafts at each other. When the shafts hit the earth, they exploded with the light of a million suns, blinding the sight of men. A huge cloud of smoke rose and became a giant umbrella, then, it rained and after several moons, the marrow in men’s bones turned to water.”
To any modern person familiar with the happenings of the Nuclear Age, this is an ancient description of a massive and devastating nuclear war, a cataclysmic event that all but ended the civilization of that time. Is there any other rational explanation?
[Those descriptions could also refer to lightning and volcanic eruptions, or possibly an asteroid or comet impact. India is in sailing reach of Indonesia, where there are many destructive volcanoes. Anthony Appleyard 11:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)]
Is it possible that in the war between Rama and Ravana that the final outcome was decided with nuclear weapons?
We all know that one of the places where Sita was confined is Sita Eliya, near Nuwara Eliya. It is also a fact that the entire area around Nuwara Eliya has a black soil, cinder-like and totally infertile; to a depth of 25 to 75 centimeters and that the site of Lake Gregory today could be a huge crater, much like the crater caused by a nuclear detonation at ground level. The black soil could be nuclear ash. It is also a fact that the curious Moon Plains is pockmarked by craters. Gold was panned here in the Nineteenth century and it is entirely possible that the area contains tektites or minerals fused under extreme heat like that of a nuclear explosion close to the ground.
Another curious thing is that the subterranean cave system behind the Ella Falls (Ravana Ella Falls) is said to be connected to the Isthripura cave system at Uva Paranagama, near Welimada, and that this cave system ends near the banks of the Mahaveli Ganga at Mahiyangana! For speleologists, this is an underground paradise to explore. What, if anything did Ravana fear from the sky that impelled him to explore, plan, expand and construct a vast subterranean system? Was it to escape the ‘shining shafts?’
Nuwara Eliya is known to us as the ‘City of Light’ and was, until the British discovered it, a gently rolling plateau inhabited by a large population of wild elephants. There is nor record of human habitation. Why, then the ‘City of Light?” Was this the place of the ‘light of a million suns?’ Perhaps some scientific investigations of soil radioactivity could reveal a part of the intriguing mystery that surrounds this place.
Hakgala, south of Nuwara Eliya and the site of an exotic botanic garden, is a three peaked mountain much like a jaw-tooth, hence its name: Jaw-tooth Rock or mountain. King Râvana is said to have had a medicinal herb garden here and is also said to have tested his famous ‘Dandu-monara’ aircraft. Research has shown that the wind currents hereabouts are ideal for gliding across the entire Uva Valley and up to Namunukula, the mountain of nine peaks that overshadows Badulla like some long extinct and brooding volcano.
Then, in Wyamba is to be found a rural township called ‘Wariyapola” which means, strangely enough, ‘airport!’
In Bandarawela, on the way to Badulla, is a place known as ‘Bindunuwewa’ which means the place where the reservoir bund was smashed or breached. An incurable curiosity led me to question an old villager who told me that a huge area of the Uva Valley round and about Bandarawela was an enormous lake or väva and that during the war between Rama and Ravana that Hanuman, the monkey god4 cleft the bund in two and millions of liters of water rushed through the breach and barreled its way north towards the almost flat site of Badulla town, where it settled. It is also true that when one travels to Badulla from Bandarawela that the sides of the narrow pass through which one goes are scraped down to bedrock... Myth, legend or fact?
It is also strange that excavations on a hillside at Bandarawela overlooking the hospital revealed fish-hooks amongst other items. Fishing hooks on a dry hillside or was this once upon a time, a lakeside settlement? The vista below lends credence to the väva story.
To this day leading and reputable ayurvedic or deshiya-vaidhyya5 physicians will tell you that their pharmacopeias utilizes herbal and mineral remedies attributed to King Râvana.
Yes, indeed, questions seeking answers. If you are intrigued enough by the story of Râvana, then you might want to dig deeper. Who knows what you might discover?
Was Ravana really a 'demon' or was it a degratory term used to elevate Rama beyond his stature?
The following statement: "Here is a great warrior-king who terrorized his enemies, a genius in his day and age who bestrode his island kingdom like a colossus. His exploits were many and hence, indelibly fixed in the minds of simple, ordinary people of whom he is well beloved and no ‘demon’ as made out by the writer of the poem, Valmiki, two thousand years after the alleged happenings in his epic version of the events. This story, which became a folk-tale has been retold for perhaps, hundreds of generations in an oral tradition that goes back at least four thousand years – and that’s a lot of time during which a tale could have been embroidered in the telling and re-telling as little details were added or forgotten according to the imagination and skill of the teller of tales" can be said of contemporary tyrants.
For example, the same can be said of Hitler. He was a warrior-king who terroized his enemies and was fixed in the minds of Germans. It doesn't convice me that Ravana was necessarily benevolent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Kamba Ramayanam shows Ravanan as a Just King and that Sitha was the lost Daughter of him.--Tamilstyle (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Even a Tyrant may have some good qualities but still is a bad person.
The fact is that even if a bad tyrant has some good qualities does not mean that he is not overall a bad person. Some, for example, communists may say Stalin was good for his reforms but it does not exonerate him to such extent that he is indeed a good person. Hitler is another example. Hitler was an evil man although some say that he helped Germany recover economically. Also, Lord Ram only invaded Lanka after diplomatic efforts failed. Second, Vibhushana, was not treacherous and fled in order to avoid being killed by Ravana for opposing him. even if one argues he was treacherous, to stand idle in face of evil is to support evil. That's why he is praised as symbol of righteousness. Karna, despite having some good qualities, is faulted for siding with Duryudhana even though he knew the Pandavas' cause was just. This shows the contrast between Karna and Vibesshana. That's why it was proper for him to oppose Ravana. It is uncontested that Ravana abducted Rama's wife, Sita Devi and no amount of glorification can exonerate Ravana on that point.
Same with Duryudhona in the Mahabharata. He had some good qualities and was a great warrior even though he was overall on the whole, a bad person. Bhima, on the other hand, had some bad qualities but he was overall a good person.
Human beings are complicated creatures and show shades of gray. One should look at the overall character to determine whether he is a good person or bad.
Also, the Allies in world war II bombed dresden and did bad acts but overall they were the 'good' guys. To say wanton destruction of Lanka is an unfair characterization. In any war, even a just war, cities will get destroyed. Raj2004 3 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
Notion of Ravana as good is recent byproduct mostly of Dravidian movement
Many people in the south elevated Ravana as good as part of the Dravidian movement which feared domination from the North. see http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2012/stories/20030620003609800.htm also, even in Thailand and Bali's version of Ramayana view Ravana as a bad man.
second, one reader in rediff, site, http://mboard.rediff.com/board/board.php?boardid=news2005jun13sai&page=4 said the following about Ravana: "(One writer, Sivaswamy, sic) He should have some basic knowledge of Dravidian movement (which is limited to Tamil Nadu). Only this movement has attempted to idolize Ravana, merely because: Ravana is supposedly a "Southerner" (he was King of Sri Lanka which has long ceased to be part of India, anyway). Rama was a "northerner" and on top of it an "aryan" and therefore for a Dravidian movement there is a pathological hatred against Rama. What is forgotten and surprising too, is that in this process this Dravidian Movement which has been attempting to idealise Ravana (only to spite the Northerners and the Believers) forgets conveniently that Ravana was also a Brahmin! How come then that this brahmin haters have turned to become a brahmin lover (only in the case of Ravana?)."
Just to give a Neutral point of view
Ravana was indeed a brahmin by birth,as far as the Dravidian issue is concerned i don't think there is anything to say on it, anymore even they know it ,southindians accepted Hinduism that is that, since today everything is a political agenda it is a shame,
Ravana is evil in ayya-vazhi
Raj2004 00:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Raj2004, are you saying you want to alter the article to show Ravan's evil side up more? If so, you can count on my support in the matter, as long as it does not revert ultimately to what it was before I came along. I personally don't buy anything in the Ramayana as hard fact, so I think he's just an evil demon, who some see as good so I added their view in. elvenscout742 02:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily, elven But to say ramayana is biased towards him is an unfair statement. even a tyrant may have some good qualities.
elven, what I am saying that we should not try to present Ravana as if he was a good person, like Jesus Christ or Krishna. He may have had some good qualties but he was overall bad. (also see Ramayana bashing, http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0012/ET25-6471.html I don't think the article does that. In fact, many Hindus may feel offended by the tone. It would be like stating the the Bible is hopelessly biased against Lucifer or Satan. Satan was once an angel but then became evil. In which countries is Ravana viewed as good? In Thailand, and Indonesia and all parts of the world, Ravana is viewed as evil in their versions of ramayana. So it's not just an Indian point of view. Also, to say Ramayana is mythical may be questionable. Christians would be offended if we say the Bible is mythical.
Also, Ravana was known for his excessive lust. He had raped Rambha, an aspara, http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/weeks/week05/readingb.htm as well as Vaidhehi. He was known for various misdeeds and was cursed by many. Just do a google search of Ravana and cursed.
The article's tone may appear to present him as a morally ambivalent figure, neither good or bad, sort of like a Pontius Pilate type of figure or at worst a good king. Second, according to the Bhagavata purana, there's a similar satan-like story. Ravana, according to that account was the incarnation of Jaya, the gatekeeper at Vaikunta, the abode of Vishnu and was cursed to be born as Ravana.
The story is roughly as follows:
Two pious devotees named Jaya and Vijaya and Sri Vishnu had appointed Vijaya doorkeepers. They felt that they were the chosen doorkeepers of Vaikunta and were always very near the Supreme Lord Narayana. > So they grew haughty. Once it so happened that four > boy-saints named Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatkumara and > Sanatsujata came to pay homage to Sri Vishnu. > Because of their great yogic power, they could enter > Vaikunta. Jaya and Vijaya puffed up with arrogance > stopped them. The saints were angry and cursed them. > They said, "You are so very near the Lord, and yet > you are ignorant. Until you get supreme knowledge, > wander in the world below." Then the two doorkeepers > came to their senses. Trembling with sorrow, they > prayed to Sri Narayana. He said to them, "These are > men of pure piety and great self-control. Their > words must come true. Go to the earth below; come > back when you have gained wisdom." Then they wept > before the Lord saying, "What will > be our fate if through ignorance we forget God > Himself?" Narayana took pity on them and offered to > mitigate the curse. He said, "Jaya and Vijaya, which > will you choose - to be my devotees in seven births > or my enemies in three births?" They agreed to three births t to be enemies of Vishnu. > > Then they fell from Vaikunta and were born as twin > Rakshasas, Hiranyakasipu and Hiranyaksha. They were > the enemies of God and of the way to God. Vishnu > assumed the form of Varaha and Narasimha and killed > them both. > After this in Tretha yuga they were born as Ravana and > Kumbhakarna and were killed by Rama. Then in Dwapara > they were born as Shishupala and Dantavakra, and Sri > Krishna killed them. So then they were freed from the > curse." from a web site retelling the version, http://hindubooks.org
Vishnu, in order to show mercy, since they wanted to get back to Heaven as soon as possible permitted their birth as tyrants. So it's like the fall of Satan. Satan was the greatest angel of God before he fell.
Raj2004 13:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Asura actually refers to anyone who acts evil ro does ruthless things the indian poet just portrays ravana as evil because ravana at that time was trying to conqueor india also Sita was not raped or anyhitng she was kept under guard and safe and the only reason ravana did steal her was becuase Lakshaman cut off her nose.
You seem confused. If Asura refers to any evildoer, what about Varuna and Mitra ? They are actually a specific race of celestial races, amongst whom Ravana is not counted because he was half Rakshasa and half Brahmana. Also, Lakshmana cut of Surpanaka's nose, not Sita's (you appear to be implying the latter). Nowhere in the article does it state as a fact that Sita was raped either - after she was rescued, some of Rama's subjects began to become suspicious of her and spread rumours that she might not have been chaste. --Grammatical error 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Asuras are the early Gods in Rig Veda.Sura paan means alcoholic drink. Those who do not drink alcohol are Asura and those who drink alcohol are Sura. Ravana is not a drunkard and hence an Asura.
- You are correct that Ravana is not an Asura in the Vedic sense but later Asuras changed its meaning in Hinduism. See Asura. Ravana is an Asura from a Puranic context. GizzaDiscuss © 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ravana and Jain Religion
As per Jain Religion, Ravana is God for Jain. Will anybody clearify? vkvora 15:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- As per the Jain religion , Ravana is currently in hell, but a few thousand years from now he will be reborn as a Tirthankar
- In Indonesian versions of Ramayana and Jaina Ramayana as well as other instances of Ravan's rape of women are mentioned. He started his career of conquest with coup de etat against his oldeer brother Kubera who was away from Lanka on assignement when Ravana betrayed him and raped Kubera's wife (his own sister-in-law). He then proceeded to meet later Shamabra Asura and raped his wife when a guest at his house (Chatursena 's Vyam Raksham). Shambara 's wife was Mandodri 's sister and hence Ravana's sister-in-law. Ravana was arrested and faced death penalty. His uncles appealing to Divodasa and Dasratha attacked shamabra and killed him, rescusing Ravana. Dasratha thus saved Ravana 's life.
Hmm... Who wrote this? Firstly, the name of Ravana older brother in Indonesian Version was Danaraja, not Kubera.
Secondly, there are no any references to Danaraja's wife in Indonesian version hence, Ravana did not rape Danaraja (Kubera)'s wife in Indonesian version. In fact, usually Danaraja (Kubera) was usually described as having no wife and in one version and killed his own father, Vishrava for his father's betrayal. Ravana, after knowing his own brother had killed their father, running amock and killed Danaraja (Kubera). Thirdly, there are no any references to Mandodri, Shamabra Asura. Ravana's queen was named "Dewi Tari", Indra's daughter.
And in Indonesian Version, Ravana was not described as a raper. He was described as a cruel king and sometimes a manifestation of evil himself but he loved only one woman, Vedavati. His marriage to his queen was only a political reason after his conquest of Indra. Kunderemp 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Removing the "Indonesian version of Ramayana". Please next time, consult Indonesians before saying "Indonesian". And when I said Indonesians, it means 'Balinese' and 'Javanese' since both of them had different versions. Kunderemp 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ravana here is shown as the grandson of Sumali in the first half of the profile and in the second half he is shown as Malyavan's grandson. Please resolve this ambiguity.
Similarly Shoorpanaka is also shown as his daughter in the first haf while she is shown to be his suster in the second half. Thus the details lack consistency.
Restructuring the article
This article does not exhibit a neutral point of view and it is silent about its sources. I really don't have the knowledge to fix the article, so someone else will have to do it. I think it should be divided into headings, roughly reflecting points of view. Something like this:
- Ravana in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata
- Ravana in Indian art and folklore
- Ravana in Sri Lankan art and folklore
- Ravana in the art and folklore of Southeast Asia
- Modern scholarship regarding the historical Ravana
In other words, the major headings of the article should be according to the SOURCES from which the material presented has been obtained. I agree with a rational approach suggested here. the opinions expressed in this discussion are also highly subjective and objectionable. While the post on Ravana is not neutral and is carrying all the baggage of prejudices in the Ramayana kavya, Wikipedia should not move in opposite extreme and put unverified , imaginary opinions. Ravana has been depicted accepting the slander imposed on his charecter in the epic. What should be recognised is that there was aggression into the areas where the non aryan tribes lived since thousands of years and it took the form of rishies and munies strayng into the areas where the non aryan tribes lived and establlshing ashrams and the sought kings protection against resistance to this intrusion. another important factor is that historians have identified vidhya mountains as the area where Ravana and vanaras lived.gnnagaraj51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnnagaraj51 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Pleased with his bravery and devotion, Shiva granted him further strength, culminating in his gifting him the Adamantium Chandrahas (Moon-blade)...
Adamantium is a fictional metal invented by Marvel comic book authors. So did the original editor mean to use either "adamant" or "adamantine" as an adjective? Because I can't tell nor can I find a proper reference to the material, I'm going to remove the link for someone to research and reference. --IsaacBarry (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hinduism and Vajrayana (Diamond Thunderbolt sect) Buddhism both occasionally use the term Adamant to represent the irresistible force - immovable object problem. It doesn't translate perfectly. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Ian Ison
Ravana's Daughter and Niece
One version of Sita's abduction has it that she is actually Ravana's daughter whom he had ordered killed to prevent the fatal prophecy of her birth bringing him undone. In a change of heart, he seeks to love her from afar, but his possessive nature wins and he must have her home. This would seem to explain why he has not raped her as was otherwise his wont with unwilling brides. During the assault on Lanka, Ravana uses his womenfolk. His niece is instructed to mimic Sita and float past Rama's camp as her corpse. The ruse is undone when they prepare to cremate her. Hanuman woos her and they have a monkey-demon son. The mermaid, Sovann Machha, his daughter, is entrusted with the destruction of Rama's Bridge. She is wooed and won by Hanuman who fathers a son who is a mer-monkey. It may be that these are two versions of the same tale - though different relationships to Ravana are stated.   ff.
who was meghnath??
the article no where mentions his name as ravan's brother...whereas ramayana has extracts stating the same...he was the one who had attacked laxman ji with brahma astra.... can any one throw more light on this please?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Who was writing accurate and verifiable History at the timeline this article belongs to ?? Is there a book written at the time of Ravna ?? it must be a stone engraved or something I suppose. How long the religions on this planet will keep dishing out hypothetical stories to the present logical man, who is guided by science ??
May be it was war couple of thousand years ago between two countries and the Victor has some novel imagination to glorify themsleves... that sounds more logical to me... unless I see BARK paper or stone writings to the effect and verifiable scientifically.
- What exactly is your point? That we should not have an article on Ravana? Nowhere in the article it's been mentioned that this is accurate history. Encyclopedia is for a purpose and this article servers the purpose well. Ramayana is the book written on Ravana btw. And no, it's not stone engraved. Gnanapiti (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Who is Ravanan?
It is known that Ravana is a dravidian.Based on what is known and written about Ravana he follows Shaivite Hindu,he is a maestro of veenai.Currently Veenai is used all over India but in ancient time Veenai is created and used in Tamilakkam.These characteristic clearly shows that Ravanan is a Tamil.Please specify this matter in this Ravana article.--Tan Meifen (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
File:RavanKailashAndolan.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:RavanKailashAndolan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RavanKailashAndolan.jpg)
Ravana Sri Lanka and Sinahalese , neutrality
He was a Sinhalese. Sri Lankan and North Indian (Hindi), who wrote orginal Ramayana believes Ravan was Sinhalese ( The Hindu reference). As per Sri Lankan myths Ravana is very powerful , Raksha king lived in Sri Lanka who had two children named meganand and other but not mentioned any of Sita or Indian invasion. This page is needed to rewritten in neutral manner. Some Sri Lankan myths says Ravana was very powerful capable ruler and others couldn't fight with Ravana so they wrote a book in which they made him as a antagonist and reverted his real world victories by writing a novel. I doesn't mean to remove any of myths written against him. But to mention Ravana's cruelty, raping women stories are taken from the hindu myth story Ramayanaya. Otherwise stating them as real facts will harm the image of a famous Sri Lankan hero. I will put neutrality tag for heavily based on Ramayanaya. Himesh84 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ravana is a mythical King from Sri Lanka from the Raksha tribe. He is not Sinhalese or North Indian and the Sinhalese and Hindi languages are not applicable for his name reference.Hillcountries (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ramayanaya is one story written about ravana. But you can't only insert things in India about Sinhalese king. Much privileged should be given to facts from SL. But here it hasn't happened. Bad image has been made on a Sinhalese king. But lets forget it for while. Ramayanaya has written by Hindi people who live in North India. "The Hindu" is India's number one news paper publisher. Hindus accept that Ravana is a Sinhalese. Sri Lankans are proud Ravana is a Sinhalese. Both parties were in the mythical battle accept Ravana is a Sinhalese. But Tamils who never participated to this war trying to imply Ravana is a Tamil considering greatness of Ravana. Rakshs who lived in SL are sub ethnic group of Sinhalese. They are ancestors of Sinhalese. Country was converted to Buddhism in 250BC so then after they wasn't called as Rakshas because they too converted into Buddhism over worshiping Raksha.
- We shoudn't argue on this. I have given reference to he is a sinhalese. Please try to understand we need something better than your word. If you want to prove he is a Tamil prove it with references. Good luck on that --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- First of all Ravana is not a Sinhalese king; he is a mythical king of Sri Lanka from the mythical inhabitants of Raksha people in Sri Lanka.
- The Hindu is a newspaper; it is not a panel of historians or archaeologists or Geneticists. Is there any scientific or historical evidence for your statement, "Hindus accept that Ravana is a Sinhalese. Sri Lankans are proud Ravana is a Sinhalese. Both parties were in the mythical battle accept Ravana is a Sinhalese." Where have you got these facts?
- On which basis you are right on your statement, "Rakshs who lived in SL are sub ethnic group of Sinhalese". How you have come out with genetic comparison with the mythical inhabitants of Raksha people with the Sinhalese people?
- Even if Raksha people existed in Sri Lanka; their Kings at that time should be referred as "Raksha Kings" and not with their so-called unproven descendants' modern ethnic identity.
- Where you have proven he is a Sinhalese?
- I am not telling he was a Tamil; though Ravana was known for practicing Shaivism and the Tamils in Sri Lanka are currently practicing Shaivism. Even Shaivism was widely practiced once in Cambodia, Champa(today's southern Vietnam) and Java and still its influence is their with Balinese Hinduism.Hillcountries (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you agree with 22.214.171.124 , please explain the questions which I have raised.Hillcountries (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sinhalese formulated by merging of Yaksha,raksha, deva , naga to Sinha. References are there in the Naga people of Sri Lanka. Raksha lived in SL are ancestors of Sinhalese. Who else the descendants of him. Tamils came in 1215 ?
Root of word "sinhala" is "siv" + "hela". "siv" means four and "hela" is another ancient names for Sri Lanka. So "Sinhala" means four races from "hela" Sri Lanka. Four races are yaksha, raksha, deva, naga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- "The Hindu" is north Indian news paper. North India (non dravidian) is the born place of Rama and Valmiki who wrote Ramayanaya. See the "The hindu" reference.
- Shaivism was practiced by Rajasinghe I of Sitawaka. But he is Sinhalese. You slowly trying to make Ravana is a Tamil. But get out from that.
- We have something to insert he is Sinhalese. You don't have anything to say he is something else. --Himesh84 (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such reference on the Naga people of Sri Lanka.
- Ravana is a mythical king of Sri Lanka from the mythical inhabitants of Raksha people in Sri Lanka. Even if they existed there is no guarantee there gene flow only rests within modern Sinhalese community; even their genes could be within the Sri Lankan Tamil community.
- Tamils came to Sri Lanka in 1215 is your malicious Original Research.
- I haven't said anywhere Ravana is a Tamil but he was known for practicing Shaivism.
- According to Rajasinha I of Sitawaka, "He converted to Hinduism and had an anti-Buddhist policy". I haven't seen any reference he practiced Shaivism. Even if he practiced Shaivism, he was a convert.
- I am removing the Sinhalese and Hindi usage with my above explanation.
While one set of myths from your side suggest Ravana was Sinhalese, let me please remind you Ramayana was an epic composed in the Ancient Past much earlier than your Sinhalese Prince Vijaya landed in Lanka or even earlier than his roots were formed in India.
In India,Nepal and other Hindu states, and according to the Ramayana epic itself, Ravana was known as a Tamil monarch inherited Lanka from his penances to Lord Shiva.He was acclaimed to be well-versed in the Vedas(The most Sacred texts of Hinduism) and Lord Shiva saved his life and bestowed him the kingdom of Lanka which he ruled more more prosperously than Kubera's Alakapuri.
References to Ravana's Tamil prowess has been marked in the Kamba Ramayana and he is seen as a Tamil Monarch in Indonesian and Thai cultures who have their own distinct versions of the Ramayana.And Once again, both these two versions and Tulsidas's Ramayana by itself were composed 5000 BCE or earlier.The Yakshas and Nagas ARE ANTHROPOLOGICALLY PROVED TO BE PROTO-DRAVIDIAN the race from which the Tamils of both the Subcontinent and the Island evolved.Sinhalese were just refugees from Odhisa/Bengal and Buddhism came in centuries after Ashoka invaded your kingdom.
All these I have stated, only for argument's sake.For one he is just a mythical figure popular to all Hindu-worshiping sects in the world who associate him with the very image of Lanka. Only for the sake to counter your utterly inglorious and pitiable shot at branding him as one of your own, I'm presenting the more reliable and much more accepted version of the myths that surround him.
--CuCl2 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Very funny Coppercholride who said you that Sinhalese were Refugees,Sinhalese are indeed not but SL Tamils could be,Sinhalese are an admixture of 4 ancient tribes + Aryans (Aryans in the sense,Prince Vijaya and his followers + other later migrations),Ravana was a Rakasha,and its one of 4 Sinhala sub tribes,Sinhala formed as such - Siw Hela (Meaning 4 Native Tribes) in a later period Si Hala ultimately Sin Hala and now Sinhala/Sinhalese.4 ancient tribes are Yaksha,Naga,Deva and Raksha.
Further if you want to know the real History of SL Tamils you can refer this Book. http://www.scribd.com/doc/113992242/Dravidian-Settlements-in-Ceylon-and-the-Beginnings-of-the-Kingdom-of-Jaffna-By-Karthigesu-Indrapala-Complete-Phd-Thesis-University-of-London-1965 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it that you have nothing else to comment against except for only that.Prince Vijaya was a refugee, and only following his arrival, came the Mahwamsa and the Sinhalese language which originated in the forests of Orissa. Sinhala sub tribes?, very imaginative term but nothing like that ever existed in South India/Sri Lanka before Vijaya came.Yakshas,Nagas,Rakshas all are Proto-Dravidian communities who evolved and belonged from the same civilisations the Tamils of India evolved to.Genetic studies show that Sri Lankan Tamils are more or less are descendants of the same tribes, and NOT YOU however vociferous you claim to be. There was no Aryan/Indo-Aryan/Sinhalese presence in Sri Lanka before Vijay landed according to the Karthigesu Indrapala your own source of reference.So what makes you not admit to that? And merely reverting edits without giving a consensus in the talk page could attract ANI' attention and I hope you would try to follow their guidelines while you are--CuCl2 09:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) here.
Ravana/Ravanan was a Tamil Saivaite Emperor
Based on the following extracts from the link I've posted below which raises substantial questions and points evidence regarding the dispute we are having here and I have made appropriate edits to the article as pointed out below that Ravannan was a Tamil king of Lankapuri.
And until these points raised are challenged or proved wrong by reliable sources, editors seeking to prove otherwise should totally refrain from editing this article failing which the issue may very well go to the ANI and the violators reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppercholride (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you prove Hindustan time is unreliable source before replaced them ? The things you linked(transcurrents.com,..) are totally unreliable sources. First you should prove Ravana is not a sinhalese with reliable source. not with this sources like transcurrents.com --Himesh84 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"According the astronomical calculations cited earlier, Ravana’s people could have been in the island (Lanka) longer than a million years back. Would this in anyway prove that these people were the exclusive ancestors of the present Sinhala – speaking people in Sri Lanka? What proof is there that Ravana did not speak Tamil or a proto-Tamil language, as Ramayana confirms that he was a Lord Siva worshipper (Saivite) and an un-surpassed exponent of classical (carnatic) music, who swayed Lord Siva himself with his rendering in the ‘Naattai’ ragam. Saivaism constitutes the major religion of the Tamils to this day and four of the five major Siva temples (Pancha-Easwarams) are located in Sri Lanka. Rameswaram- the Siva temple in which Rama himself worshipped according to legend is the only one among the Pancha-Easwarams located in India. The Tamil language has a literary tradition of over 2100 years, while Sinhala as a language developed only after the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, with its beginning as proto-Sinhala between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD. The indigenous people of ancient Lanka could very well have been Proto-Tamil-Saivites, a substantial number of whom subsequently adopted Buddhism and the Sinhala language. What evidence is there to prove the contrary? "
"To the Tamils of India, Lanka was known as Ealam/ Illankai throughout history. In the Kamba Ramayana, Ravana is referred to as the Illankai Venthan- King of Illankai. "
"There is nothing called a pure Sri Lankan or ‘Hela Divan’ as some irrational elements would like to proclaim. Modern day DNA studies also confirm that we have very much in common genetically. To call all Tamils, ‘Immigrants’, is an unpardonable travesty of truth and to consider the Sinhala-speakers residing in Sri Lanka as the only legitimate heirs to the island is a despicable lie. Large segments of the Sinhala-speakers of today have proven Tamil ancestry. "
"Ravana is a revered figure among the Tamil-Saivites.Which Sinhalese monastery worships Ravana?Or which Sinhalese historic imprint documents his existence?Further, Buddhism historically was not the exclusive preserve of the Sinhalese in South Asia as elements here try to make it to be. Tamils, both in India and Lanka had adopted Buddhism in large numbers at one time, as it was a breeze of fresh air that swept away the cobwebs and dust in the form of rituals, foolishness and casteism that had buried the essence of Hinduism. Great Tamil epics such as Silapadikaram, Manimehalai and Kundalakesi germinated and blossomed in the hey day of Buddhism among the Tamils. "
--CuCl2 10:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Sinhalese have. But it doesn't mentioned about Rama - Ravana mythical battle. It says Ravana is empire who extends his empire into great extend in Asia. He had son (Meganada) and daughter. Ravana died peacefully. That is our story. Don't forget Ramayana is mythical story --Himesh84 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hindustan times as reliable source
The Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2012 revealed that HT has a readership of (3.8 Millions), placing it as the second most widely read English newspaper in India after The Times of India. Don't replace content in HT by content in transcurrents.com, www.saibabaofindia.com , M.S. Purtialingam Pillai. Other thing is all accepted that Ravana was lived in SriLanka. HT had done a ground level research by coming to Sri Lanka before article is published. But all the other unreliable sources had only an opinion. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've done some Google-search on Ravana & Tamil King; it gave the "Sanskritisation of iraivan", which lends support to the 'Tamil-thesis'. But I also took a look at the three sources previous mentioned:
- http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/383 - A blog; blogs are not accepted as sources at Wikipedia. Interesting though, because it gives (again) twists and speculations on the Tamil origins of the oldest people of Sri Lanka. I think it cannot be considered a trustworthy source, but it does reflect the sensitivities surrounding this topic.
- http://www.saibabaofindia.com/ravana.htm - Sai Baba site; bottom of page mentions http://chat.carleton.ca/~jshanthi/trincoonline/ravana.html, which is not accessible. Looks like an untrustworthy source to me;
- http://archive.org/stream/ravanathegreatki004127mbp#page/n11/mode/2up - A book published in 1928 on "Ravana the Great: King of Lanka". Interesting, and totally non-neutral and outdated.
Being a European, I'm quite unfamiliair with the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict. Yet, as a Wikipedian, I do think that pushing POV's, from both sides, won't help. Wikipedia, and interested outsiders like me, are better served with articles that give information and perspectives from both sides, the argumention for those perspectives, and additional information and explanations on the nature of these argumentations. That is, is it based on historical fact, or also on interpretation of literary sources?
Wish you all wisdom, and the courage to live together and to listen to each other's stories. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
SITA as CAPTIVE
Worshipful Preceptor Sir The Lord of Lanka was unwilling to keep another's wife as captive for more than two months. He was indignant about the treatment meted out to Chandranakha.
Rama and Laxmana were well within their rights to rescue Sita within two months.
Lanka's identity with Sri Lanka is impossible
The Identity of Lanka with Sri Lanka is impossible because the tale of the Ramayana took place at the end of Tretayuga (2 yugas ago!) but Sri Lanka became an island only 6000 years ago and was before that date a part of the indian subcontinent (M.D. Muthukumaraswamy (Editor): Indian Folklore Research Journal Vol.1 No.4 Chennai (India) 2004, pages 100, 101, 104 Plate 2). I know this is widely believed and I myselve believed it but science has disproofed this. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the text?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)