BHARATVARSH

MISTAKES IN HANUMAN CHALISA ?

Since the past few days, you must've come across a few people who are claiming that there are some mistakes in Hanuman Chalisa.

Jagadguru Rambhadracharya ji has said that it's not 'Shankar suvan Kesari nandan' but 'Shankar swayam Kesari nandan'. And in the line ‘Sab par Ram tapasvi raja’ Acharya ji says that, it is not ‘tapasvi raja’ and instead it is ‘sir taja’. And instead of ‘Sada raho Raghupati ke dasa' it should be ‘Sadar ho Raghupati ke dasa.’

Now before discussing whether there are mistakes in the Hanuman Chalisa, you must know who Jagadguru Rambhadracharya ji is. Because this man deserves our respect ✨

He is a blind spiritual scholar who was given the title of 'Jagadguru' at the Tulsi Peeth by the Kashi Vidwat Parishad in Varanasi on 24 June 1988.

Despite being blind, Rambhadracharya ji is a scholar of 14 languages and can speak 22 languages in total, including Sanskrit, Hindi, English, French, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Oriya, Gujarati, Punjabi, Marathi, Magadhi, Awadhi, and Braj. He has composed poems and literary works in many Indian languages, including Sanskrit, Hindi, and Awadhi.

And a good amount of credit for the victory of Ram janmbhoomi case, resides with him.

In July 2003 Rambhadracharya ji deposed as an expert witness for religious matters (OPW 16) in Other Original Suit Number 5 of the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid dispute case in the Allahabad High Court.

Some portions of his affidavit and cross examination are quoted in the final judgement by the High Court. In his affidavit, he cited the ancient Hindu scriptures including the Ramayana, Rāmatāpanīya Upanishad, Skanda Purana, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda, and others describing Ayodhya as a city holy to Hindus and the birthplace of Shri Ram.

He cited eight verses from a work called Dohā Śataka, which describe the destruction of a temple and construction of a mosque at the disputed site in 1528 CE by Mughal ruler Babur, who had ordered General Mir Baqui to destroy the Rama temple, considered a symbol of worship by Sanatan Dharm.

He described the boundaries of the Janmabhoomi as mentioned in the Ayodhya Mahatmya section of Skanda Purana, which tallied with the present location of the disputed area, as noted by Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

His quotations and citations made the pro-mosque side fall weak, who were claiming Ram didn't exist, the janmabhoomi didn't exist and Ram wasn't a God. He proved all of them wrong.

Rambhadracharya ji is regarded as one of the greatest authorities on Tulsidas in India, and is the editor of a critical edition of the Ramcharitmanas.

Now if such a scholarly and wise person is claiming that there are certain mistakes in Hanuman chalisa, then there arises a need to critically analyse it rather than just denying it out of spite or just following blindly.

→ Shankar Suvan or Shankar Swayam ?

Acharya ji says that because Hanuman ji is not the son but avatar of Mahadev himself, the line should be 'Shankar swayam Kesari nandan.'

The opponents say that 'Suvan' means ansh, and because Hanuman ji is ansh avatar of Mahadev, it won't be wrong to call him 'Shankar Suvan'.

But we must see what Tulsidas ji meant, because he has written Hanuman Chalisa.

In his works, 'Suvan' is always used in the sense of a son. He calls Ganpati ji as 'ShankarSuvan, BhavaniNandan'. He calls Hanuman ji as 'KesariSuvan' and 'PawanSuvan', Ram ji as 'DashrathSuvan', Lakshman and Shatrughan as 'SumitraSuvan'.

So this proves that in the works of Tulsidas, 'Suvan' means son only.

But there is another valid argument here. The Shruti says 'आत्मा वै जायते पुत्र' meaning 'Ansh ke roop mei Putra ka avatar hota hai'. This tells us that whenever there is an avatar, it is correct to address him both as 'Ansh' and 'Putra' of that God.

This is further proven in Srimad Bhagvat Puran, where Shri Krishna and Arjun visit the abode of Bhuva-Narayan, there Bhuva-Narayan addresses both of them as 'Putra' even though both Krishna and Arjun are his avatar only.

The 10th adhyaye of Shatrudra Samhita of Shiv Puran describes the birth of Hanuman ji, and there he is described as the son of Mahadev born out of his 'Tej'.

So it is not wrong to call Hanuman ji as 'ShankarSuvan'. But Hanuman ji is Rudra-avatar of Mahadev, so calling him 'Shankar Swayam' also won't be completely wrong.

Now let's see the authentic texts, to know whether there are some publishing mistakes or not.

→MANUSCRIPTS :

In Bajrang baan which is also written by Goswami Tulsidas, he again calls Hanuman ji as 'ShankarSuvan Veer Hanumanta'.

And here are snippets from some old manuscripts from Allahabad national museum, Raghunath temple of Jammu and Rewa state sanghralaye -

As per these Manuscripts, it is 'ShankarSuvan', 'Sab par Ram Tapasvi Raja' and 'Sada raho Raghupati ke dasa' only.

→CONCLUSION :

The Hanuman Chalisa that we have been reading and reciting till now is correct and there are no mistakes in it.

And as per what Rambhadracharya ji said, maybe it's because in his vast understanding (which we cannot ignore), 'Shankar Swayam' is more befitting than 'ShankarSuvan' (as we discussed earlier, neither of them are wrong) and same for the rest of the 'mistakes' he pointed out.

But Goswami Tulsidas ji wrote exactly what we have been reciting till now, so don't worry and recite Hanuman Chalisa the way you have been.

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
A/N

Btw respect to Jagadguru Rambhadracharya ji for his contributions in making us win the Ram Janmabhoomi case ✨

And credits to Veducation for doing the research in this matter.