This article is linked to by one or more organisations, using QRpedia. Statistics are available. For further information, please see WikiProject QRpedia.QRpediaWikipedia:WikiProject QRpediaTemplate:WikiProject QRpediaQRpedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
I notice that many of the referenced sources are "Amar Chitra Katha" - however, these are comic book adaptations. Is there not a better source text to be using? Edwardnb (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Promotional link removed – svastika.in
Hello,
I noticed a promotional blog link from svastika.in was added as a reference in this article. It does not meet Wikipedia’s reliable source standards and appears self-promotional. I have removed it according to WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines.
Thanks for understanding. HanumanSevak2025 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Image per Wiki guidelines
Part 1
Some users are trying to change the main image without consensus to a shocking, controversial, and gory image that has blood flowing out of heart, which violates the Wikipedia:Image use policy which states that:
"Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article."
The image is named Ravivarmapress . jpg, and caption = Hanuman showing Rama and Sita within his heart, illustration from Ravi Varma Press
I would suggest replacing this shocking image, with a more appropriate, decent amd godly images, such as
Hanuman Statue at Shri Sidhheshwar Hanuman Mandir, Chhindwara, MP.
Or the Hanuman Statue at Chhatarpur Temple, New Delhi
This image is had been on the page for several months, without any issues. It's not shocking, and follows the Wikipedia:Image use policy. Please discuss if needed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I oppose this change. The image use policy also states:
"Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article."
This image depicts a scene from the epic Ramayana, where Hanuman reveals his heart to express his devotion to Rama. It therefore has context and serves encyclopedic purpose. It is certainly not controversial or added simply to grab attention. Deeming it inappropriate, shocking, or indecent is a matter of opinion. This image in question hasn't caused any issues either. I don't believe it violates this guideline and think it should be restored. Chronikhiles(talk) 10:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi Chronikhiles,
While I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, there is a policy to avoid use of shocking images, especially as the main image of the article. There has be a very broad concensus and complelling reason to have a shocking and gory image that shows red blood flowing out of heart of Hanuman, and very likely which violates the Wikipedia:Image use policy which states that:
"Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article."
Also, the main image should be similar to common use image of the deity used in temples or prayer. I do not see any temple or statues depicting bloody heart images of Hanuman.
Further, I may agree that the image attempts to depict a scene from the epic Ramayana, where Hanuman reveals his heart to express his devotion to Rama, but the scene does not mention blood flowing, and was more metaphorical, while the image is explicit idea of the painter depicting blood to gain attention, and hence likely violates Wiki image policy.
I would agree to add an image of Hanuman with open heart without any blood to depict the Ramayana scene, in a relevant section in the article, but not as the main image. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi Chronikhiles, Actually, I found an image as suggested by you, of Hanuman with open heart without any blood to depict the Ramayana scene, and we can add it in a relevant section in the article, as discussed earlier. Image is: As per folklore Hanuman in his devotion to Rama tears his chest open and to everyone's surprise, there is an image of Rama and Sita inside his chest.IMG 9951.jpg with Hanuman at Paramarth Niketan, Muni ki Reti, Swargashram, India
Ar Paramarth Niketan, Muni ki Reti, Swargashram, India
I have added the image, which depicts the scene from Ramayana, in the relevant subsection: Bhakti, which talks about Hanuman being the exemplary devotee (bhakta) of Rama and Sita, providing context to the image. Also, the image is not shocking as it does not show any blood flowing from the heart. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Part 2
I've replaced the image of the statue in the lead with a more traditional picture; the statue is the kind of soulless, oversized-to-impress kitsch statue that's devoid of artistic sensitivities, and which mainly seems to be to overshadow (figuratively and literally) others. Little to do with bhakti, lot to do with demarcating group-boundaries. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
While I disagree that the Statue main image was soulless or less artistic, which are a very personal opinions, I am okay with the current replacement by JJ which is good quality bhakti image and not shocking, largely okay per Wiki image guidelines. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I think the Statue image discussed above, is very widely used in many temples, and needs to be included in the article, at least in a section, if not the main image. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Is it widely used? It looks like an oversized plastic model; too smooth, too realistic, created with a computer. That's what I mean with 'soulless'; there's no art, no handcraft in it. It's like 'the bigger, the better - banal, far removed from ego-transcendence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
It's a real statue at the temple. Shri Sidhheshwar Hanuman Mandir Simariya, Chhindwara, IndiaRogerYg (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Sadly there seem to be no CC images of Hanuman at Chhatarpur Temple, New Delhi but we have it for the Chhindwara Temple RogerYg (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not an art historian, but it would be interesting to find out how it was designed and produced, and what art critics think of this style. @Johnbod: would you know more? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Jain art in particular has many famous super-large statues, which these probably seek to emulate. The Gommateshwara statue ( 57-foot (17 m) high, c. 983 CE) is the best known I think. The style and iconography here seem fairly standard for modern Hindu works - not to everybody's taste for sure. The race for record sizes of religious buildings (gopurams etc) and statues (mentioned below) is a undoubtedly a huge thing in Modi's newly prosperous India, whether critics like it or not. The open heart one (plaster, I'd guess) inevitably recalls the Sacred Heart of Jesus and "cutaway" medieval images of the pregnant Virgin Mary showing a small Jesus inside (see Pregnancy_in_art#Virgin_Mary). Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I have visited the Hanuman statue at Chhatarpur Temple, New Delhi, and the devotion towards the 108 feet high Statue was immense among the devotees, and its far from soulless for them. Regular prayers are held in evening, and its a prominent landmark of South Delhi for spiritual tourists. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Statues – big statues, the largest in the world – are being built all across India. Like many public monuments, they attempt to convey history in a concrete form. But India’s new statues convey something else, too: the power and vision of one dominant group – and the vulnerability of others.
This paper examines the recent emergence of statue-making in India, a powerful political-cultural state apparatus. Statue-making commemorates historical figures and events, thereby recreating dominant cultural narratives. The study focuses on how the Modi government has favoured Hindu culture and iconography through statue-making, particularly reinforcing the revival of Hindu visuals in public space.
The Delhi Chhatarpur temple is not recent. In fact I went there in 2008, and people told me it has been there for many years. Likely there since 1970s. Modi govt came in 2014.
Also, its a Stone Statue of good quality. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Probably not Stone, but cemented concrete, but looks good quality. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Chhatarpur Temple in New Delhi that houses the Hanuman Statue was built in 1974 per Wiki. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, most of them are recent. I think the main reason is that India was quite a poor country till 2014, but has prospered rapidly since then, which is visible to anyone visiting India. Others can claim that it is a political or cultural narrative. I'm not much interested in the local politics. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In Jain versions of the Rama story, Hanuman is not a divine monkey but a **Vidyadhara** (also called a Khecara in some texts), that is, a member of a class of powerful beings who possess **vidyās**, special supernatural sciences or powers. The **Vanaras** and **Rakshasas** are not as literal monkeys and demons, but as human or semi-divine branches of the larger Vidyadhara lineage. Their extraordinary abilities, such as aerial travel, magical transformations and other marvels, are explained through vidyās rather than divine incarnation.[1][2]
In Jain universal history, Rama (Padma) is the eighth **Baladeva**, Lakshmana is the eighth **Vasudeva**, and Ravana is the eighth **Prativasudeva**. Accordingly, Rama does not kill Ravana; **Lakshmana kills Ravana**, in keeping with the Jain narrative scheme.[3]
The earliest extensive Jain Ramayana is Vimalasuri's Paumacariya (Prakrit: Paumacariyam). In this tradition, Hanuman is born to **Anjana Sundari** and **Pavananjaya**. Anjana is banished after being wrongly suspected, and gives birth in the forest. Later, when she is being carried away in an aerial vehicle, the infant falls onto a rock; the rock shatters while the child remains unharmed. He is thereafter associated with **Hanuruhapura**, from which his name is explained.[4]
Jain texts also differ sharply from many Hindu traditions in portraying Hanuman **not as a lifelong celibate**. In the Paumacariya, he marries several women, including daughters associated with important ruling lineages; in some retellings this makes him connected by marriage to both Sugriva's and Ravana's circles. After his worldly career, Hanuman eventually **renounces royal and social life and becomes a Jain ascetic**, a theme consistent with the Jain tendency to culminate heroic biographies in renunciation.[5]
Hanuman's relation to **Sugriva** and **Vali** is also treated differently in Jain Ramayana traditions. The Vanaras are not depicted as literal monkeys but as a clan whose emblem was a monkey. In some Jain retellings, the conflict surrounding Sugriva is reshaped and does not always follow Valmiki's version exactly; the story is presented in more human and political terms, in line with the Jain tendency to reduce miraculous and animalistic elements.[6][7]
The Jain explanation of the Vanara lineage is genealogical rather than zoological. According to this tradition, the Vanaras descend from a Vidyadhara line established at **Vanaradvipa**; the name Vanara is associated with the monkey emblem of the clan, not with actual simian nature.[8] Likewise, shape-changing and similar feats are attributed to specific vidyās. For example, Ravana is described as acquiring the **Bahurupa-vidya**, a power associated with assuming multiple forms.[9]
Unlike the better-known Hindu tradition, Jain versions generally minimize overtly miraculous episodes. Hanuman serves Rama as a loyal ally and envoy in the search for Sita, but several famous supernatural motifs are reduced or omitted. In Vimalasuri's telling there is, for example, **no burning of Lanka** in the usual epic form, reflecting the Jain preference for a more rationalized narrative structure.[10]
In later Jain literature, especially in the Digambara tradition, Hanuman also came to be identified as one of the **Kāmadevas**, a class of exceptionally handsome and heroic men celebrated in Jain universal history. This classification further distinguishes the Jain Hanuman from the Hindu deity-like figure and places him within the Jain system of illustrious human exemplars.[11]
Later Jain retellings, including Ravishena's Sanskrit Padmapurana and Gunabhadra's Uttarapurana, preserve the broad outline of Hanuman's story while adapting it to Jain ethical and cosmological ideas, especially the themes of non-violence, karmic causation, and final renunciation.[12][13]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AncientJainism (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Please change the entire current "Jainism" subsection to the text below.
Change:
The current "Jainism" subsection
To:
"In Jain versions of the Rama story, Hanuman is not a divine monkey but a Vidyadhara (also called a Khecara in some texts), that is, a member of a class of powerful beings who possess vidyas, special supernatural sciences or powers. The Vanaras and Rakshasas are interpreted not as literal monkeys and demons, but as human or semi-divine branches of the larger Vidyadhara lineage. Their extraordinary abilities, such as aerial travel, magical transformations and other marvels, are explained through vidyas rather than divine incarnation.[14][15]
In Jain universal history, Rama (Padma) is the eighth Baladeva, Lakshmana is the eighth Vasudeva, and Ravana is the eighth Prativasudeva. Accordingly, Rama does not kill Ravana; Lakshmana kills Ravana, in keeping with the Jain narrative scheme.[16]
The earliest extensive Jain Ramayana is Vimalasuri's Paumacariya (Prakrit: Paumacariyam). In this tradition, Hanuman is born to Anjana Sundari and Pavananjaya. Anjana is banished after being wrongly suspected, and gives birth in the forest. Later, when she is being carried away in an aerial vehicle, the infant falls onto a rock; the rock shatters while the child remains unharmed. He is thereafter associated with Hanuruhapura, from which his name is explained.[17]
Jain texts also differ from many Hindu traditions in portraying Hanuman not as a lifelong celibate. In the Paumacariya, he marries several women, and after his worldly life Hanuman later renounces and becomes a Jain ascetic.[18]
Hanuman's relation to Sugriva and Vali is also treated differently in Jain Ramayana traditions. The Vanaras are not depicted as literal monkeys but as a clan whose emblem was a monkey, and the conflict surrounding Sugriva is presented in more human and political terms than in Valmiki's version.[19][20]
The Jain explanation of the Vanara lineage is genealogical rather than zoological. According to this tradition, the Vanaras descend from a Vidyadhara line established at Vanaradvipa; the name Vanara is associated with the monkey emblem of the clan, not with actual simian nature.[21] Likewise, shape-changing and similar feats are attributed to specific vidyas; for example, Ravana is described as acquiring the Bahurupa-vidya, a power associated with assuming multiple forms.[22]
Unlike the better-known Hindu tradition, Jain versions generally minimize overtly miraculous episodes. Hanuman serves Rama as a loyal ally and envoy in the search for Sita, but several famous supernatural motifs are reduced or omitted. In Vimalasuri's telling there is, for example, no burning of Lanka in the usual epic form.[23]
In later Jain literature, especially in the Digambara tradition, Hanuman is also identified as one of the Kāmadevas, a class of exceptionally handsome and heroic men celebrated in Jain universal history.[24]
Later Jain retellings, including Ravishena's Sanskrit Padmapurana and Gunabhadra's Uttarapurana, preserve the broad outline of Hanuman's story while adapting it to Jain ethical and cosmological ideas, especially the themes of non-violence, karmic causation and renunciation.[25][26]"
Reason:
The whole subsection needs to be updated because the current version is too short and has some inaccurate details.
This change:
changes Hanuman from a "divine monkey" to the Jain description of a Vidyadhara/Khecara
corrects his parents to Anjana Sundari and Pavananjaya
explains that Vanaras are treated as a clan with a monkey emblem, not literal monkeys
adds the Jain version where Lakshmana kills Ravana, not Rama
adds Hanuman's marriages and later renunciation as a Jain ascetic
adds the later Digambara tradition that counts Hanuman among the Kāmadevas
These points are supported by the sources cited above. AncientJainism (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
It would be better if you cite pages numbers for the citations, to make them easier to verify. InfernoHues (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Closing this as Not done since the request for page numbers hasn't been done. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 22:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Chandra, K. R. (1970). A Critical Study of Paumacariyam. Research Institute of Prakrit, Jainology and Ahimsa.
Mass revert
@Joshua Jonathan, I noticed that you made edits which affectively reverts a number of edits I had made. Can you please explain what content policy your edits are based in, considering you have changed the words "account," "narrative," "text," and even "stories" to "legends"? Hemmingweigh (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I think you should answer my question, and explain your edits and their pov-pushing: what's inappropriate about calling legends "legends"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan, I am happy to explain my edits, but would have preferred to have this conversation *in advance* of you selectively editing words that I specifically had edited, resulting in what is essentially a revert without doing reverts to my specific edits. I had made those edits a while ago, so I am curious how you even identified my specific edits on this page?
I am happy to explain my use of terms for the edits you have specifically worked on in your two recent edits. The terms "account," "narrative," "text," and "stories" are standard academic and encyclopedic terminology that clearly articulate what is being described in the relevant sentence. For example, "text" refers to something written while "narrative" acknowledges a point of view and doesn't specify whether it is written or oral. The use of these varied terms create engaging yet clear writing that is the hallmark of Wikipedia. In the online dictionaries I consulted, "legend" has to do with something that is "a story coming down from the past" or "a popular myth of recent origin." The use of the word "legend" is not neutral here but would suggest that Hanuman is in fact a historical figure as a matter of scholarly consensus. My point of view is that religion pages should maintain neutrality and reflect scholarly consensus, and I am indeed "pushing" that perspective with my efforts here. I welcome conversation on this and other terms, but would ask for the courtesy of conversation in your targeting of my edits especially since you haven't reverted them, but specifically edited the words I had edited some time ago.
Your edit summary "d narr" is unclear. Please explain this along with your targeting of words I had edited to replace them with "legend."
"d narr" seems to be a typo. Regarding conversation *in advance* of you selectively editing words that I specifically had edited, see WP:OWN. And what's the wonder about "selectively editing words" which you had "specifically edited"? But I agree with you that "legend" refers to historical persons, which is not the case here. But the same argument applies to "hagiography", by the way. My point, though, is that I've seen too many attempts over the years, especially at the Hindu mythology page, to replace terms like myth and legends with more neutral sounding words. In this case, I'd prefer to use the word "tale", which makes more clear that these "accounts" and "narratives" are (religious) fiction. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan, what did you intend to type instead of "d narr"? The variety of words I had included were carefully chosen to be accurate, varied, and engaging. This article is not improved by replacing a variety of words with different meanings to any word, including "hagiography" or "tale." You stated that you've "seen too many attempts over the years, especially at the Hindu mythology page, to replace terms like myth and legends with more neutral sounding words." Can you expand on what you meant by that? See WP:NPOV to learn more about the importance of neutrality on Wikipedia. Hemmingweigh (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
No idea anymore what I intended to type; see the history of Hindu mythology to see what I mean. And if you choose your words carefully, why "hagiography"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan I intend the words I use per their common dictionary definition. Hemmingweigh (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
@Hemmingweigh "Hagiography" (because Hanuman is venerated?), per its dictionary definition, does not seem to describe the content of the section. "Itihasa-Purana" also seems too narrow based on the content, which includes Jain and regional accounts. I think the section name was "Legend" and that seem right - if "Legend" is non-neutral, maybe it can be "Traditional accounts"? Asteramellus (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Just like "legend", "hagiography" is used for historical persons, not for mythical figures like gods. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks Joshua. For the section, do you think "Traditional accounts" better represents the content than "Itihasa-Purana"? Asteramellus (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
@Asteramellus The hagiographic mode is not strictly confined to historical persons and devotional literature about divine figures share its structural features. But I take the point that the standard dictionary definition is too narrow and I can support the use of "traditional accounts" which is more capacious.
@Joshua Jonathan since you have not provided a response to why you have changed all of varied, neutral, and content-specific words I *did* use throughout this article and I still do not know what your edit summary title should have been; I will go ahead and revert your edit that was essentially a revert of my carefully chosen and meaningful wordchoice improvements. Since your issue is with the term "legend" and "hagiography" and *not* "account," "narrative," "text," and "stories" then this should resolve this issue. Hemmingweigh (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan an update: I was unable to revert the edit to to intermediate edits. I will just continue to edit this page for grammatically correct, neutral, varied, and content-specific word choice as and when I get a chance. If you disagree with the edits, please discuss on the talk page and use clear, meaningful edit summaries. Discussing with the relevant user before making edits that are about other pages or broader POV concerns will certainly be more productive than the alternative. Hemmingweigh (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
I did respond, both in the edit-summary and here. You also missed my comment on "hagiography". Regarding Discussing with the relevant user before making edits that are about other pages or broader POV concerns will certainly be more productive than the alternative: walk your talk, and discuss every change you want to make before you do so, if you want your commands to be taken serious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan, I am asking that since you changed the neutral, varied, and content-specific word choice I had added carefully over time in favor of one specific term through just one edit, if you could discuss that in good faith to prevent further spinning of wheels and unnecessary conversation. I am not asking for anything more than that. I also am still wondering your logic in removing neutral, varied, and content-specific word choice in favor of one word which you believe is charged with a specific point of view. If you can provide more clarity on your perspective and choices, I would like to understand. Other than that, I have nothing more to say here. Hemmingweigh (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan, I see your diff. I am surprised that you made these edits without consensus or even mentioning it on the talk page. This conversation started on May 3rd and you said on May 6th, "...In this case I'd prefer to use the word "tale," which makes more clear that these "accounts" and "narratives" are (religious) fiction."
Am I understanding correctly that your belief is that this Hindu scripture is fiction? My perspective is not to say anything definitively about this on Wikipedia because it is an Encyclopedia.
Changing my neutral word choice to "legends" and then to "heroic" needs explanation. In what sense is "heroic" a neutral term?
In one instance in your May 6th edit, you changed my edit "stories" to "texts and narratives." Are you saying that "texts and narratives" is *more* neutral than "story"? If so, why did you then change "Hindu legend" to "story" elsewhere within that same May 6th edit?
As evidenced by your edits during this talk page conversation, my original wording *was* neutral by your own standards, since you then used them. What is then your purpose in making these edits and engaging in this talk page conversation?
There needs to be consensus in an active talk page conversation before edits are made about the text being discussed. Wouldn't you agree?
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_name_of_the_God_as_per_the_Vedas.svg){kind=small}
