All of us have read in Ramayana about the Sita giving birth to twins after she was banished by Ram. She gave birth to Luv and Kush in the hermitage of Rishi Valmiki.
Here is a different version of the same myth.
After Sita reached the hermitage of Rishi Valmiki, she soon gave birth to a child, who was named Luv. Once when Sita had to go to the forest to collect wood, she left Luv in the custody of Rishi Valmiki. Soon Rishi got busy with his work and Luv crawled away to the forest after Sita.
When Rishi Valmiki realized that the child was nowhere, he got worried and thought that Luv must have wandered away and become prey to some animal. He didn’t have the heart to tell about his negligence to Sita and have her heartbroken. He took kusha grass (the auspicious grass that is used for rituals) and created another Luv!
Soon Sita came back with Luv and was surprised to find another child who was a duplicate of Luv. Since the child was created from the kusha grass, he was named Kush.
There are two theories to this. One is that in those days or the creators of this version did not understand the concept of twin births and so created this version. As mentioned earlier, twin births have always been a matter of intrigue to our early thinkers. So this could be seen as resolving an early problem or an intrigue and trying to seek an explanation that Science has now given to us.
Another more interesting theory is that if this version is true, then is this an early indication of cloning? Did our rishis have such knowledge? Given that we have to give some space for fictional aspect of the myth (rationalists would say, that even if it was a clone, the clone would still be younger than the original Luv!), then can this be negated? Or was it an idea that the author of this version had as wishful thinking that our present day scientists seem to be indulging in?
Or finally, is it that our skeptic and ever-doubting mind is seeing too much into a simple and an insignificant aspect of the epic?
Myths are the creations of non-literate, unscientific, oral cultures. They were either seeking answers or giving explanations or setting standards, both moral and ethical. No aspect of any myth is insignificant as all myths carry symbols.
So are we missing something?