[HedgeYourBets]

Hi All,

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine reg. Ramayan. Though not an atheist, I don't believe everything in the scriptures, especially things out of the ordinary. So I told him pointblank that we shouldn't take certain events literally. We must read between the lines.

I specifically mentioned the vanaras (or monkeys) building bridges etc. which sound impossible. But he said because it happened in the south, it might be referring to the dravidian populations of that time. He said people were still continuing to evolve at the time, and that the features of the dravidians or tamils during the ramayan era could resemble the modern apes. Which is why, he says, no such descriptions were put forth in the earlier part of ramayan, where the setting was basically north india populated by aryans.

In effect, he says the word 'vanara' is not to be confused with real monkeys that we see today, but to the ancient dravidians who had ape-like features, and still continuing to evolve.

Could this be? It sounds far fetched to me. Is it really possible that vanaras actually refer to tamils, and NOT to monkeys, as is commonly believed. Are there any experts on history here who can clarify with some evidence from any source, even ramayan, for that matter?

It'll be greatly appreciated if someone can share their insights on this subject matter.

Thanks in advance.