Hanuman’s parentage is one of the few questions in Hindu narrative that has two answers in two different scriptural streams. The Valmiki Ramayana (Kishkindha Kanda, Chapter 66) and the Bhagavata Purana name Vayu, the wind god, as the divine father, with Kesari, an earthly vanara chieftain, as the legal father and Anjana as the mother. The Shiva Purana, particularly in its Rudra Samhita, gives an alternative account in which Hanuman is a partial incarnation (amsha-avatar) of Shiva himself, born through Anjana after Shiva accepted to take birth to serve Rama. This article walks through both traditions, the textual evidence for each, and the reconciliation that bhakti commentary offers.
The Valmiki Ramayana account
The principal narrative is in the Kishkindha Kanda, Chapter 66, where Jambavan (the bear king) reminds Hanuman of his birth in order to motivate him to leap across the ocean to Lanka. Jambavan recounts that Anjana, an apsara reborn as a vanara through a sage’s curse, was meditating on a hillside when Vayu passed near her. The Valmiki text uses the phrase manasa (in mind, by mental agency) to describe Vayu’s act: Vayu did not approach Anjana physically but transmitted divine influence to her, and from this contact a son was conceived. Kesari, Anjana’s vanara husband, is recognised in the Valmiki text as Hanuman’s legal father; Vayu is the divine progenitor whose power Hanuman inherits.
The Valmiki Ramayana names Hanuman as Vayuputra (son of Vayu), Maruti (son of the Marut, another name for Vayu), and Pavanasuta (son of Pavana, also Vayu). These names recur throughout the Sundara Kanda. The Bhagavata Purana, the Vishnu Purana, and the Garuda Purana (3.16.68 specifically) align with this account and treat Hanuman as marud-amsha (a partial incarnation of the wind).
The Shiva Purana alternative
The Shiva Purana, particularly Rudra Samhita Section 5 (Yuddha Khanda), Chapters 20-21, gives a different account. Vishnu and the gods, anticipating Vishnu’s coming Rama avatar, asked Shiva to take birth as a vanara to serve as Rama’s principal aide. Shiva accepted. Anjana, then performing tapas to obtain a son, became the mother through whom Shiva would take birth. The Shiva Purana describes Shiva entering Anjana in the form of his eleventh Rudra and Hanuman as the resulting child. In this telling, the function of Vayu is to be the carrier or transmitter: Shiva’s power is conveyed to Anjana through the agency of Vayu, who is therefore the proximate father, while Shiva is the substantial source.
The Shiva Purana account is less commonly cited in mainstream Vaishnava commentary but is the principal account in Shaiva bhakti traditions, particularly in the Lingayat tradition and in some Tantric Shaiva texts. The Skanda Purana, in some recensions, also includes material consistent with the Shiva-amsha reading.
Anjana’s tapas: the cause that activates both readings
The two accounts converge on the figure of Anjana. In both, she is performing austerities to obtain a son. The Valmiki account treats the tapas as background; the Shiva Purana puts it at the centre. Anjana, in the Shaiva account, was specifically requesting Shiva as her son. Shiva, pleased with her devotion, agreed. The transmission then happened through Vayu, who in the Shaiva reading is acting as Shiva’s agent rather than as the substantial father.
For what it’s worth, the cleanest way to hold both accounts together is the one that Tulsidas takes in the Ramcharitmanas (16th century): Hanuman is the son of Vayu in lineage (Vayuputra is the name Hanuman himself uses), and he is the eleventh Rudra (an aspect of Shiva) in essence. The Vaishnava reading places Vayu as primary and Shiva as a parallel claim; the Shaiva reading places Shiva as primary and Vayu as the means; Tulsidas, working in the bhakti tradition that synthesises Shaiva and Vaishnava materials, holds both as compatible.
Kesari, the legal father
Kesari, Anjana’s husband, is a vanara chieftain who appears in both accounts. The Valmiki Ramayana names him as the king of Sumeru or the chief of the vanara settlement at Kishkindha; his role in the Hanuman birth narrative is the legal father who raised the boy. Hanuman is therefore called Kesarinandana (son of Kesari) in some hymns alongside Vayuputra. The distinction between legal and divine fatherhood is standard in Puranic narrative; the Pandavas in the Mahabharata are described in identical terms (Pandu is the legal father, the five gods are the divine progenitors).
Why Anjana was a vanara: the curse
Anjana, in the Valmiki account, was originally an apsara in Indra’s court named Punjikasthala. A sage cursed her to take birth on earth as a vanara because of a transgression. The curse specified that she would be released when she gave birth to a son who was an incarnation of divine power. Hanuman’s birth therefore liberated his mother from her vanara form. This detail is preserved in both the Vaishnava and Shaiva accounts, and it provides the structural reason why Anjana, a celestial figure, is in the vanara forest when the avatars need a vanara mother for Hanuman.
The eleventh Rudra: the Shaiva theological frame
The eleven Rudras are aspects of Shiva enumerated in several Puranas. The Shiva Purana names them as Kapali, Pingala, Bhima, Virupaksha, Vilohita, Shastra, Ajapada, Ahirbudhnya, Shambhu, Chanda and Bhava (with some variation across texts; the Vayu Purana gives a different list). In the Shaiva reading, Hanuman is the incarnation of the eleventh of these. The reading allows the Shaiva tradition to claim Hanuman without displacing the Vaishnava emphasis on his service to Rama: he is Shiva in essence, working as Rama’s servant, and the work is a continuation of Shiva’s vow.
Hanuman’s own statement: Rama-dasa above all
In the Valmiki Ramayana, Hanuman repeatedly identifies himself as a servant of Rama (Rama-dasa) and treats his other titles, including those that reference his parentage, as secondary. The Sundara Kanda 30, the Yuddha Kanda 113-114, and the post-coronation episodes all have Hanuman placing his service to Rama above his lineage. This is the bhakti tradition’s resolution of the parentage question: the servant’s identity is constituted by the one he serves, and Hanuman’s father becomes (in functional terms) the one to whose work he is dedicated.
Where each tradition is dominant
- Vaishnava and Smarta traditions: Vayu is the divine father. Hanuman is Vayuputra and marud-amsha. This is the position of Sri Vaishnavas (Ramanuja’s tradition), of the Madhva line, and of most popular Hanuman bhajans.
- Shaiva traditions: Shiva is the source, Vayu the transmitter. Hanuman is the eleventh Rudra. This is the position of Lingayats, of some Tantric Shaiva texts, and of regional Shaiva traditions in Karnataka and Andhra.
- Synthetic bhakti traditions: Tulsidas in the Ramcharitmanas, and Goswami Tulsi-influenced north Indian bhakti generally, holds both as compatible. Hanuman is Shiva-amsha in essence and Vayuputra in lineage.
Common questions
Which account is the older one?
The Valmiki Ramayana account predates the Shiva Purana as a redacted text. The Valmiki text in its current form is generally placed between the 4th century BCE and the 2nd century CE; the Shiva Purana’s current form is placed between the 8th and 12th centuries CE. By textual priority, Vayu as the divine father is the older established account. The Shaiva tradition reads its account as an older oral substrate that the Shiva Purana finally records, but the manuscript evidence is what it is.
Why does Hanuman call himself Vayuputra?
Hanuman uses the name Vayuputra throughout the Valmiki Ramayana when introducing himself or being named by others (the Sundara Kanda is densely populated with the name). In the Shaiva reading, Vayu is the proximate father (the agent of transmission) and the name is correct in that limited sense. In the Vaishnava reading, Vayu is the substantial father and the name is correct in the full sense. Both readings allow Hanuman to bear the name; they differ on what the name means.
Does Hanuman’s worship today follow the Vayu or Shiva line?
Most popular Hanuman worship is Vaishnava in orientation: the focus is on Hanuman as Rama’s servant, and the parentage is read through the Vayuputra line. The Hanuman Chalisa, the Sundara Kanda parayana, and the Hanuman temples in north India (including the major sites at Salasar Balaji, Mehandipur Balaji, and Hanuman Garhi at Ayodhya) follow the Vaishnava reading. Shaiva temples that have a Hanuman shrine (as at many south Indian temples where Hanuman appears at the entrance) generally do not contest the Vaishnava reading; they hold the Shaiva account as a complementary teaching.
One limitation worth noting
The parentage question is not one a scriptural arbitration can definitively settle, because it depends on which Purana the reader accepts as primary. The Vaishnava and Shaiva accounts have coexisted for over a thousand years and the bhakti tradition has worked out a synthetic reading that holds both. Most household and temple practice does not distinguish, treating Hanuman as Vayuputra in name and Shiva-amsha in essence, with the practical emphasis on his service to Rama. This article has summarised the textual positions; the lived practice is comfortably ambiguous.
For deeper textual treatment, see the Wikipedia entry on Hanuman for cross-tradition references, and the entry on Anjana for the mother’s narrative.
