From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Folklore, arts and literature In the Philippines Connection with Ramayana[edit]

Many fables and stories in Filipino Culture are linked to Indian arts, such as the story of monkey and the turtle, the race between deer and snail (slow and steady wins the race), and the hawk and the hen. Similarly, the major epics and folk literature of Philippines show common themes, plots, climax and ideas expressed in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.[1] According to Indologists Juan R. Francisco and Josephine Acosta Pasricha, Hindu influences and folklore arrived in Philippines by about 9th to 10th century AD.[2] The Maranao version is the Maharadia Lawana (King Rāvaṇa of Hindu Epic Ramayana). Lam-Ang is the version of the Ilocanos and Sarimanok (Garuda) is the legendary bird of the Maranao culture. In addition, many verses from the Hud-Hud of the Ifugao are derived from the Indian Hindu epics Ramayana and the Mahabharata.[3]

So, who is more credible the one who creating alternative theories or the works of the professional - academic writer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


  1. ^ Maria Halili (2010), Philippine History, ISBN 978-9712356360, Rex Books, 2nd Edition, pp. 46-47
  2. ^ Mellie Leandicho Lopez (2008), A Handbook of Philippine Folklore, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-9715425148, pp xxiv - xxv
  3. ^ Manuel, E. Arsenio (1963), A Survey of Philippine Folk Epics, Asian Folklore Studies, 22, pp 1-76



In Philippines, the Maranao people version is the Maharadia Lawana (Maharaja Rāvaṇa) as well as the Darangen, the pre-Islamic Maranao interpretation of the Ramayana[1] Biag ni Lam-ang the epic poem of the Ilocano people from the Ilocos region of the Philippines. Recited and written in the original Ilocano [2]according to Indologists Juan R. Francisco and Josephine Acosta Pasricha, the nature of Hindu influences and folklore arrived in Philippines by about 9th to 10th century AD.[3] [4][5].

Reasons for Removal:

--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ Yabes, Leopoldo Y. (May 1931). "The Heroine of the Ilocano Epic, "The Life of Lam-ang"". Philippine magazine. Manila: Philippine Education Co. 31 (1). Retrieved 2015-08-17.
  3. ^ Mellie Leandicho Lopez (2008), A Handbook of Philippine Folklore, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-9715425148, pp xxiv - xxv
  4. ^ Manuel, E. Arsenio (1963), A Survey of Philippine Folk Epics, Asian Folklore Studies, 22, pp 1-76
  5. ^ Halilli, Maria Christine (2004), Philippines History, pp. 46
@Ms Sarah Welch: Request your opinion on dealing with Philippines info.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz: That deserved removal. We need direct support in good quality RS for this. I recall reading a while ago two articles by Juan Francisco, one was From Ayodhya to Pulu Agama Niog: Rama's Journey to the Philippines. Something to find and look into. Meanwhile, please see The Indigenization of the Rama Story in the Philippines, for a quick read. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you better need to read and understand the contents before you remove I got feeling of some members here are trying to exclude Philippine sections so you all better check it before you remove it as the sources are clearly stated As If they are not come from books .(Skyrim9 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
good quality? of course , influence of Hindu Buddhist texts are get reached up to Philippines (by its culture and languages even specially to its literature!)- AS IF it is isolated from its neighbors , but as the stated references aren't a hoax but a provable academic writings, by the Legit writers . weather it is influence or derived it is still have elements from Ramayana I hope it won't ended up to the info based from the interpreted ideas of some members here and its getting plain obvious in the recent times. (Skyrim9 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
@Redtigerxyz:, after examining Biag ni Lam-ang it has nothing to do with Ramayana or bear any similar storyline or theme. Suggestion of Ramayana influence on Biag ni Lam-ang Philippines folklore is sketchy, unclear, and at best speculative. Support removal of Philippines section per WP:UNDUE. Gunkarta  talk  10:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Have you both ever examine the content of the sources listed? specially you @Gunkarta: the stating references that supports it ? you also remove the Mindanao part of the philippine section. here we will doing some conclusions based on their own ideas "peacockry?" well, that's silly. you can't say it is a peacock term since it was based on books listed so anyone here are acting as the expert. they just jumping to conclusions based on their ideas.

Like Juan R. Francisco and Josephine Acosta Pasricha books which you called an "original research" but it is published publicly so i don't think it is considerable as a unpublished thesis or original research

You keep saying not related who are you to determine the not related are you one of the one who published the accounts? sounds irrelevant some of us here are saying they are far more experts than those indiologists by the acts of some of us here they already turned to be a self -claimed experts, a considerable.

My god ! i m sorry on my rant but i feel there's "something "on this but here's my question: which is far more reliable? the sources comes from a Professional research done by this idiologists or the member of exclussionits wikipedians who jumping to their conclusions based in their ideas as the legit info? ANSWER! what an inverted world here in wikipedia if it is (Skyrim9 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC))

Your rant and rambling is back and forth in circle, I will examine and try to clean this Philippines section plus its ref one by one. Those local Filipino folklores that was not the version of Ramayana or related to Ramayana will be removed per WP:UNDUE. And those ref falsifying, (borrowing and quoting ref, but after examination did not mention Ramayana or mention any argument given) also will be executed. Gunkarta  talk  09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ms Sarah Welch for sharing The Indigenization of the Rama Story in the Philippines link which talks about Maharadia Lawana as the Phillipines' version of Ramayana. This info is relevant to the article, however Biag ni Lam-ang is not.Redtigerxyz Talk 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear me, here's another mess of a talk page. :S Let me start by agreeing that the earilier efforts to cite Biag ni Lam Ang as a "version" of the Ramayana seem quite ludicrous. And although I'm much less familiar with the Darangen, the similar claim for that particular piece of folklore seems unsupportable as well. (Based on what I must admit is still a rather preliminary lit review.) But I think there are enough RSes to support the assertion that Maharadia Lawana as the Maranao version of Ramayana. (And since the Maranao are considered Filipinos, that it is a "Filipino" version.) There's The Indigenization of the Rama Story in the Philippines as Ms Sarah Welch pointed out, and there's also the orignal 1969 Asian Studies journal article. Both are by Juan R. Francisco, whose credentials as a scholar are documented in his own wiki entry. There's also a reference to it in Artemio R. Guillermo's [Historical Dictionary of the Philippines], although I'm less familiar with the academic provenance of that piece.
The impolite circular rambling and personal attacks on this talk page are unfortunate, and so is the dragging of the Biag ni Lam-Ang and the Darangen into this mess, but perhaps we should rewrite the Philippines section to include the Maharadia Lawana?
I should add that I created an article for it a while ago while doing cleanup for Biag ni Lam Ang. A search for scholarly articles on Philippine versions of the Ramayana confirmed that there were no references to the Biag, but it also turned up the Maharadia Lawana, so I created that page. (And I'm now changing the redirect page Maharadya Lawana from a redirect to Ramayana to a redirect to Maharadia Lawana, since it seems to just be an alternative spelling.) I will point out, however, that I'm only somewhat familiar with Maranao folklore and only created the article to make sure it's clear it, rather than the Biag, was a version of the Ramayana. I'm also not going to claim to be a Ramayana expert, so I'll let better minds than mine do the editing. Just sharing what I know of the subject based on my work elsewhere. I hope it's helpful. - Alternativity (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I've begun a cleanup of the Philippines section using the three sources cited (beggining with the Guillermo text because it's shortest, although I'm a bit worried because it's tertiary literature at best). For now, I've made some essential grammar cleanup, and phrased assertions more cautiously. I'll try to reflect the precise language of the two Francisco references when I get to them. I'll be adding page numbers as I go so people can check individual assertions. I'll also try to keep it short. I'm only cleaning it up because even minor grammar errors might obscure nuanced facts in this case.- Alternativity (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I believe that JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppets have done more to destabilize Wikipedia than any other editor (even more than JuanRiley), apart from the fact that he/she called me and Gunkarta a quote "dog", apart from the fact that he/she evaded his/her blocks multiple time. I believe this type of behavior should get him/her banned until they learn to deal with suck problem in a civilized manner. I think this edit should be reverted until there is much more concrete evidence is shown to support these edits. I Appreciate Ms Sarah Welch and Alternativity for their efforts but the sources of Juan R. Francisco seem to concentrate more on mere oral traditions and not an actual established culture in the Philippines. I think before anything else, we should review the sources provided before putting anything in the article. (N0n3up (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC))
I am not sure what you meant from "JournalmanManila", content is mostly written by Alternativity and Skyrim9, none of them are blocked. I had also expanded to that section.[1] Capitals00 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should initiate a discussion of whether Francisco qualifies as a Reliable Source in this case? And perhaps further input from User:Ms Sarah Welch, User:@Redtigerxyz, and User:Gunkarta would be useful? (Thank you very much for your previous input, folks!)
User:Capitals00, I believe User:N0n3up is implying that Skyrim9 behaves much like a sockpuppet of User:JournalmanManila, a persistent block evader who constantly seems to resurface. Multiple SockPuppet Investigations against multiple accounts have tried to undo the damage he has done (my impression is that he pushes an ultranationalist view of Philippine pre- and early history). As N0n3up has said, the various sockpuppets have been very offensive, launching personal attacks against N0n3up, User:Gunkarta and myself at various times. I must say I share their frustrations. (Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone's position.)
That said, regarding the Maharadia Lawana, I've had my say and concede to existing scholarship, and the wisdom that is the wikipedia consensus process. :D - Alternativity (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Still a sock puppet investigation is due if the SPI results in block then still per WP:BANREVERT anyone can take responsibility of the edits. Capitals00 (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I have already made an SPI in the past for one of JournalmanManila's sockpuppets yet he/she still manages to evade his/her block, Alternativity and I agree that Skyrim9 is one of those sockpuppets. And regarding the sources, I do believe that the sources provided by Ms Sarah Welch and Alternativity seem legitimate regarding Filipino history and culture but not particularly for this article or the very least needs reviewing and or further discussion. (N0n3up (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC))

───────────────────────── Juan Francisco's The Indigenization of the Rama Story in the Philippines is RS for this article on Ramayana, the epic story of Rama. Francisco is oft cited in secondary and tertiary scholarly literature (see note 15 on page 16 in this Oxford Univ Press published book, for example). Just like elsewhere, the Filipino version has same recognizable characters, but the story details have been modified, are different from Buddhist/Hindu versions of Ramayana in SE Asia, and it is closer to the "Islamicized re-adaptation / version of Ramayana" found in Islamicized islands of Indonesia and Malaysia. For more, please see chapter 19 by Jukka Miettinen and others. A few sentences summarizing all this would be appropriate in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Francisco's book talks around the seventeenth century, when the Philippines was well under Spanish rule, and for "The Ramayana Revisited" and "Reading the Sacred Scriptures", the pages cut of from shown texts and doesn't seem to mention the Philippines after using the search bar. (N0n3up (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC))
Also, I just opened another SPI for Skyrim9 and his/her possible sockpuppets. (N0n3up (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC))
What about the source I had provided? It mentioned Philippines, you can check [2][3], many sources are available. Capitals00 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Those might work. Although considering the fact that the Philippines is one of the least influenced southeast Asian countries by larger cultures prevalent at the time until Spanish colonization and that pre-colonial Philippines is not given much emphasis might be something to review. Other than that, I agree if everyone else is okay with it. (N0n3up (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC))
N0n3up: What do you mean "using the search bar"? Are you acknowledging you have not read Francisco's publications on Ramayana? FWIW, an encyclopedic article includes a historical overview. It is not a blog to reflect personal knowledge or what happened last week in Manila or in recent years on many of the beautiful islands of Philippines!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I did read Francisco's work, what I meant was that some parts seemed to be missing, that's all. (N0n3up (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC))
I understand Capitals00's intention which I accidentally mistook as being JournalmanManila's sockpuppet, yet he/she needs to inform of the incoming edit related to this topic in the talk page. Also, this seems to be very fragile compared to other Ramayana versions of other countries. (N0n3up (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC))
The content is relevant to the article and it has a few reliable sources. I can also see that having the section may reduce chances of JornalmanManila's sock puppetry but we should not be sacrificing quality content for that. I am asking you to self-revert now. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You bring a good point D4iNa4, if having the section placed in reduces JournalmanManila's block-evading presence then that seems good yet not a valid reason since we should not do so out of fear of JournalmanManila's return, the article is more important from that perspective. The sources does seem to point out such yet as an overall outlook doesn't seem to weigh in. Ramayana in general is mostly prominently mentioned in other countries west of the Philippines and the content seemed to strain to work out what it is. The author of the content does specialize in Pre-colonial Filipino history yet out his vast array of works, only mentions it briefly as if not being part of integral Filipino tradition. Again, we shouldn't let vandals like JournalmanManila get the best of us. (N0n3up (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC))


Maybe you need to describe that why there should be section for "other countries", but not Philippines. One source also points to Artemio R. Guillermo, a well known Filipino-American academic. Also except you, other editors have agreed with the inclusion. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur that there is consensus among legitimate editor commenters for the inclusion. Although of course, I continue to treat N0n3up's objections in good faith. - Alternativity (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Alternativity My main concern is that this edit might encourage JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppet to return. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Sanskrit IPA[edit]

Wouldn't the Sanskrit IPA rather be [raːˈmaːjəɳəm]? Compare Help:IPA/Sanskrit and how the long vowels are transliterated over at Mahabharata or Amitabha for example. (NB: my knowledge of Sanskrit and Devanagari is still pretty rudimentary, so sorry if this is a silly questions!) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you're comparing these two:
[rɑːˈmɑːjəɳəm] (what the article currently has)
[raːˈmaːjəɳəm] (what you're proposing)
The difference is whether ā (Devanāgarī आ) is transcribed as ɑː (current) or (proposed). Articles for these two (if I understand correctly): Open_back_unrounded_vowel and Open_front_unrounded_vowel respectively. Unfortunately I cannot tell the difference between the two so I have no response for you :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Iceland and other Diasporas[edit]

I am irritated by the sentence

"The characters Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, Bharata, Hanuman, Shatrughna, and Ravana are all fundamental to the cultural consciousness of India, Nepal, USA,Canada,Icelandand south-east Asian countries such as..."

What's that thing about Iceland?? And even if there are huge Indian Communities in Northern America, it is misleading to say that the characters of the Ramayana are "fundamental" to the cultural consciousness of those countries (ignoring the fact that if you want to make such claims you have to at least include all the Indian diaspora - what about Britain?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D305:AC00:AE3D:1E96:5332:8931 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ramayana in historical perspective[edit]

Ramayana in Historical Perspective by H. D. Sankalia can be helpful to add information on historical perspective on the Ramayana. There is very little information on historicity of Ramayana in the article. As subject is complex and historicity could be controversial and expertise is required, I am not adding it myself but invite other editors who had worked on the article to do needful. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)