From Purāṇic to Folk: the ‘Kirātārjunīyam Ballade’ and Visuals

. The present article aims to examine a folk literary motif from the ‘Kirātārjunīyam’. Kirāta (hunter-Śiva) and Arjuna once needed to clash with each other during the forest life of the Pāṇḍavas. Arjuna wanted to obtain the coveted pāśupatāstra from Śiva that could only be awarded to a soldier of mettle to wield the missile efficiently. Arjuna undertook hazardous tapas pleased with which Śiva tested Arjuna and finally awarded the astra . This myth appears in the Mahābhārata dated sometime in the fifth century BCE and its folk origin may get back to the immoral past. This story was retold in a classical work by the poet Sanskrit Bhāravi in eighteen cantos. The article examines a key motif relating to the Penance of Arjuna (cf. the Māmallapuram bas relief) from the Kirātārjunīyam episode, called pañcāgnitapa s and how the Penance of Arjuna is retold in the ballad understudy? Several folk motifs of kuṟavaṉ-kuṟatti of Kuṟṟālakkuṟavañci are illustrated in a later phase of the art in Tamilnadu (e.g., the Thousand-Pillared Hall of the Great Maturai Temple of the Nāyaka period). Kirātārjunīyam was a popular motif in sculptural art though the ages.


Introduction
Classical literature may have their roots in bardic poems of immemorial origin. Similarly, itihāsic-purāṇic episodes are likely to be based on ballads, e.g., the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki supposed to have been derived from the popular recitals of the sutas-Kuśīlava. 2 Clas-sical poems in Sanskrit and Tamil (e.g., the several versions of 'Kōvalaṉ-katai') came to be recast in folk forms that may be called ballad (sixteenth century and after). Ballad is a simple spirited narrative poem, rooted in French ballade meaning "a dancing song"; cf. Deutsch bal'lade, balladry bal'leden-ditchtung. The aim of retelling popular mythologies in a language Pāṇḍavas were exiled to the forest for thirteen years. Arjuna proceeded to the Himālayas to propitiate the gods and obtain celestials weapons. To obtain the powerful missile, pāśupatāstra Arjuna undertook the pañcāgnitapas, 6 and once needed to fight with Śiva who came in disguise as Kirāta and obtained the coveted missile. 7 Indra, Varuṇa, Yama, and Kubera had their share in testing the valor of Arjuna to award celestial weapons. This mythology was later elaborated by Bhāravi in Kirātārjunīyam 8 .
The Kirātas seems to be an ancient aboriginal tribe famous since the Mahābhārata times (anterior to c. 500 BCE) 9 . Oral mythologies and ballads of the pre-CE are likely to have influenced in the interpolation of a myth relating to the confrontation between Śiva and Arjuna in the Mahābhārata. This folk idiom over centuries of telling and retelling reenters the folk circle when the need arose in the post-16 th century Tamil literature, e.g., the Pañca-Pāṇṭavar Vaṉavācam. The formula in this process of literary transaction is: 10 The folk through itihasic is the root of the cultivation of classicism.
The Mahābhārata seems to have been retold in Tamil during the later Pallava period, e.g., the Pāratam of Peruntēvaṉār. This work is not extant but for 830 poems cited in other works 11 . The Tamil bhakti hymns of the Nāyaṉmār have codified a lot of material on the subject 12 Banarsidass, 1996), 412. 8 Noted in an inscription dated in 634, Bhāravi is linked with the founder of the Eastern Calukya dynasty, Viṣṇuvardhana or Siṃhaviṣṇu of Kāñci, and also the Gaṅgā Durvinīta; "but all this is very doubtful": Nilakanta Sastri,  Nainar Subrahmanian, An Introduction to Tamil Literature (Chennai: CLS, 1981), 32. 12 This data is earlier than the Pāratam of Peruntēvaṉār that is considered to be a contemporary of Nandivarman III (c. 846-69 CE). 13 Cf. the two articles of M. Nagarajan, "Kirāta in the Later Medieval Art of Tamilnadu", East and West 43, no. 1-4 (1993): 295-300; Krishnamoorthi Kandan, "Kirātārjunīyam in Early Indian Art", Annali dell' Istituto Universitario Orientale 51, no. 4 (1991): 436-438. couched in folk literary style was intended to enact these dance-dramas in-country theatres, called terukkūttu when cinema was unknown. 3 Several hundreds of such manuscripts may be found all over India in several languages, and oral traditions. The present article aims to examine a folk literary motif from the 'Kirātārjunīyam'. Kirāta (hunter-Śiva) and Arjuna had to clash with each other during the forest life of the Pāṇḍavas. Arjuna wanted to obtain the coveted pāśupatāstra from Śiva that could only be awarded to a soldier of mettle to wield the missile efficiently. Arjuna undertook hazardous tapas pleased with which Śiva tested Arjuna (leading to a malla-yuddha "duel") and finally awarded the astra 'missile'. This myth appears in the Mahābhārata (chap. 167, Vana Parva) dated sometime in the fifth century BCE and its folk origin may get back to the archaic time. This story was retold in a classical work by the poet Sanskrit Bhāravi in eighteen cantos (anterior to 634 CE). The myth was adapted to Tamil literary taste; e.g., Villiputtūrār Pāratam (14 th century CE) and Kaccilaiyār Makāpārataccurukkam (18 th century). During the terukkūttu saga of Tamil culture, a folk work called Pañca-Pāṇṭavar Vaṉavāvam (Forest Life of the Pañca-Pāṇḍavas) was written to meet the need of country theatres. This succinct article examines a key motif relating to the Penance of Arjuna (cf. the Māmallapuram bas relief of the imperial Pallava period) from the Kirātārjunīyam episode. Called pañcāgnitapas, how the Penance of Arjuna is retold in the ballad under study? Several folk motifs of kuṟavaṉ-kuṟatti of Kuṟṟālakkuṟavañci are illustrated in a later phase of the art in Tamilnadu (e.g., the Thousand-Pillared Hall of the Great Maturai Temple of the Nāyaka period). Kirātārjunīyam was a popular motif in sculptural art though the ages.

Kirāta in the Mahābhārata
John Dowson, early authority (later 19 th century) writing on Hindu mythologies enumerates the myth of Kirāta in a few words. Kirātas were "foresters and mountaineers living in the mountains east of Hindustan". 4 They are described in the Rāmāyaṇa as "islanders, who eat raw flesh, live in the waters, and are man-eaters" (men below and tigers above). Their females are described as "gold-colored and pleasant to behold", identified with "Cirrhadae" on the Cōḻamaṇṭalam coast by classic writers. 5 Kirātin "crowned with a diadem" is a title of Arjuna and his patriarch, Indra.
An extract from the Mahābhārata would reveal when Yudhiṣṭhira lost his kingdom by gambling, and the Bhāravi's epic. Therefore, when the 'Kirātārjunīyam' myth was retold in Tamil later in the post-16 th century the authors of these ballads must have been familiar with the Tēvāram hymns in addition to the pan-Indian epic, the Mahābhārata or its retelling in Tamil, e.g., Villiputtūrār-Pāratam and Kaccilaiyār's Makāpārataccurukkam (see Jegannathacharya 1985). Scholars writing on 'Kirātārjunīyam' in art and literature have not considered the Tamil sources seriously 19 . Raju Kalidos has examined the Tēvāram hymns from the iconographical point of view 20 . The theme was popular in the visual and dance-drama arts of the subcontinent down to contemporary time (Figs. 9-10). I have illustrated twelve specimens (Figs. 1-12) that include folk motifs 21 .
Though cryptic, these notes are infinite riches in little rooms that suggest the Tēvāram-trio must have been familiar with the mythologies told in the Mahābhārata or/and some folk Tamil  and wanted to find out who is doing the fire-generating tapas . He was told it was the son of Pāṇḍu soliciting the Lord's grace 27 . Śiva pretended [naṭi-491 "act"] to say he could not grant boons to anyone. Śiva invited Vāyu [Kāṟṟaracaṉ-138 "wind king"] and ordered him to ruin the tapas. Viṣṇu, called Māyavaṉ/ Māya|ṉ ran fast and informed of the brooding danger. He was advised to withstand the tempest with vigor. Vāyu could not shake Arjuna and was crest-fallen. Arjuna told Vāyu he wanted the pācupatam-186 from Śiva otherwise he would "break his skull", "cut the head", "burn the body" and "embrace death". Vāyu blessed him success in his endeavor and left giving his best astra (vāyuvāstra). The firmness of Arjuna was informed to Śiva. Vāyu said he was helpless.
Śiva then invited the God of Thunder 28 , Iṭiyaracaṉ-206 who was commanded to destroy Arjuna's tapas. 'Kōṭaiyiṭipakavāṉ'-213 (God of mid-summer Thunder or "king of thunder") was also defeated and returned offering the thunderbolt-astra [Iṭiyāstiram-234. An important dimension of the confrontation with "Thunder" was that Arjuna demanded a boon to the effect that the Thunthe multitude of gods: muntimunti-Vināyakarē-muppattu-mukkōṭi-tēvarkaḷē… 27 In this connection the names of the other four Pāṇḍavas are noted; Tarumar/Dharmarāja, Vīmar-Bhīma, Nakulaṉ-Nakula and Cakātēvaṉ-Sahadeva. 28 'Iṭiyaracaṉ' is King of Thunderbolt that denotes Indra. No god for iṭi is known in Vedic-Sanskrit or Caṅkam-Tamil tradition. The folk are free to create new gods based on names of natural forces, e.g., miṉṉal-aracaṉ "king of lightening". 10-11 and lasted till early in the morning. The 'Kirātārjunīyam' is the last "act" that includes several "scenes"; e.g., Shakespeare's plays consisting of five acts and five or more scenes. That means the "Forest Life of the Pañca-Pāṇḍavas" ends with Arjuna taking the pāśupatāstra from Śiva. The text on the subject is in about 520 lines, each line consisting of 5-6 words. The chapter number is 12, named 'Kāḷa-Pairava-Vaṉam' (Forest of Kāla-Bhairava). That is to say, the scene is set in the Forest of Kāla-Bhairava 23 .

The Myth
The Pāṇḍavas had completed eleven years of exile and finally arrived at the Kālapayiravavaṉam 24 at the beginning of the twelfth year. The ṛṣis (sages) living in the forest meet them to say they were conducting penance for years together but had not yet got the darśana of Śiva. It is added they stood in the fire but could not find out the Lord; pañcāgnitapas is ear-marked (tīyiṉil-nil-20). The Pāṇḍavas were advised to visit the Kailāsa. Hearing these words, Arjuna moved to the Kailāsa and undertook a strenuous penance. The stage for his performance was set as follows placing one above the other (Fig. 1) fig. 36). He was undaunted when the sun was scorching, rain torrential and snowfall heavy. It was an akōratavam/aghoratapas and aruntavam (meticulous penance). Unable to bear the conflagration arising from the tapas, Śiva ordered his attendant to summon the presence of Māya-Viṣṇu, Mayilōṉ-Murukaṉ, Piramaṉ-Brahmā, Piḷḷaiyār-Gaṇapati, Vāyu, Varuṇa|ṉ, Iṭi (God of Thunder) and Intiraṉ-Indra. Listening to the summoning, the gods arrived seated on their respective vehicles: Kariya-Māl (Black-Viṣṇu) on karuṭan-Garuḍa, Indra on āṉai-Airāvata, Kanṭaṉ-Skanda on mayil-peacock, and Piḷḷaiyār-Gaṇapati on peruccāḷi-bandicoot. The muppattu-mukkōṭi-tēvar (thirty-three crores of gods) was present 26 . Śiva spoke to Viṣṇu telling his solitude is disturbed The reference to the text is denoted by the line number following a word, e.g., Pañcavar-1 means the word Pañcavar (i.e., Pañca-Pāṇḍavas) appears in line 1 of the 12 th chapter on 'Kālapairavavaṉam'. Pañcavar also denotes the Pāṇḍyas of Maturai. 25 This is purely a folk ballade description. No illustration of this theme is yet detected in the plastic arts. 26 This invocation is purely a dramatic convention in terukkūttu performance. The plays being with an invocation to Gaṇapati and annihilated. The noses of Kūḷis were cut and the poisonous beaks of eagles and wasps broken (ll. 450-451). All the efforts of Śiva to foil the penance of Arjuna proved futile. Arjuna was steadfast to obtain the divine missile from Śiva. der-God should not attack any person when the name "Arjuna" is uttered (popular saying in country-side) 29 : [236][237][238] "in the Kali age wherever it thunders, if anyone utters the name 'Arjuna' you [iṭi] must quit the place (without harming)" "Thunder" offered the boon and ran away saying "leave me free" [appā-viṭu-342]. To this day the folk believes when it thunders uttering the name "Arjuna" protects them. "Thunder" returned to Śiva and told him "even if the Cosmos is turned upside down, Arjuna could not be defeated" [361].
The variety of Kirātārjunīyam depictions shows that there were regional variations in the myth and iconography. The visuals are regularly attributed to classical figuration and rarely with folk design (cf. Figs. 2, 10-13). Today the utsavaberas are adorned with folk attire, during the festivals (Fig. 10) 43 . In the pan-Indian typology, it is Kalyāṇasundaramūrti, while in Tamilnadu it is popularly Mīnākṣī-Sundareśvara Kalyāṇam. The former type at times may become a foreign term to the local populous.

Folk elements and ballade substance
An important clue to the date of the Pañca-Pāṇṭavar-vaṉavācam and its integral part 'Kirātār- Two Cōla temples connected to the Pāśupatāstra myth are Sundareśvara Temple, Veṭṭakuṭi (sung by Ñāṉacampantar) and Vijayanatēśvara Temple, Vijayamaṅkai (sung by Ñāṉacampantar and Nāvukkaracar). For Southeast Asian visual example see Gail, Narrative Panels from the Baphuon temple, Angkor Thom: fig. 8.

43
The Veṭṭakuṭi utsavabera is known as Veṭṭamūrti. The utsavabera bronze idol is classical in aesthetic appreciation and as brāhmaṇical deity. While the utsavabera-ulā 'procession' is folk in nature and attire. Because the procession and the festivals have more a regional color and they are not always same in the Hindu world. A good example is the Mīnākṣī kalyāṇam is of brāhmaṇical nature, while Aḻakar festival is of folk culture.

Visual Culture of Kirātārjunīyam
The largest relief sculpture of the story is the Arjuna's tapas at Māmallapuram (Fig. 3). Similarly, the complete story is narrated in the ceiling murals of the naṭyamaṇḍapa, Vīrabhadra Temple, Lepākṣī (Fig. 11). Nowhere in Indian Art, the Kirātārjunīyam story received such an appreciation as in Lepākṣī. 39 The treatment of Kirātārjunīyam myth in visual culture is as follows: a. Most commonly the Arjuna and Kirāta is depicted in archery combat for the boar, b. In the Hoysala art, they both are engaged in wrestling (Fig. 6), c. Arjuna penance, standing with one leg is a common feature, d. The boar as a common feature 40 , in between the fighters, the astra as mūrti 'lord' as the personified form and also the embodiment of Śiva. Pāśupatāstramūrti has multiple inlaid meanings, both in myth and visual culture. Those visual values can be understood only when the folk, regional and classical mythologies are clearly deciphered.

39
The Story depicted in almost thirty-five meters of murals in the ceiling.  ka (1623-59 CE). 44 This is to suggest the ballad under study may be dated in the 16 th -17 th century. 45 Śiva taking shelter in various maṇḍapas would further attest the impact of Nāyaka culture. It was only during the Vijayanagara-Nāyaka period that so many maṇḍapas 46 were added in macro temples (e.g., Maturai, Śrīraṅgam) to enact festivities and for the accommodation of utsavaberas (Fig. 11).
Arjuna preaching ahiṃsa to Śiva is an interesting theme. It recalls minding the Bhagavat Gītā where the Kṛṣṇa advocates dharma-yuddha to annihilate terrorism. Arjuna was unwilling to kill his pitāmaha (Bhīsma) and gurus (Kṛpācārya and Droṇācārya). Ahiṃsa is not the subject-matter of the Gītā. It advocates war to protect the peace-makers, cf. the UNESCO's dictum: "Let us fight for Peace" Ahiṃsa was the breath-spell of Mahātma Gāndhi. This idea seems to have been propagated through the terukkūttus during the movement for independence in the history of Tamilnāḍu. Terukkūttu seems to have been an effective medium for the propagation of the ideals of freedom fighters, e.g., the popularization of the melodies of mahākavi-Bhāratiyār in the movies and dramas down to 1947. In this medley, the Indians were Pāṇḍavas, the British Kauravas and the French Kṛṣṇa (e.g., Pāratiyār seeking shelter in Putuccēṟi).
Śiva is addressed with several folk Tamil names that are listed below. It is to suggest that Tamilization of Sanskritic idioms began with the ballads of the 16 th century.
junīyam' is that the word tiruviḷaiyāṭal [ll. 205, 373, 398] is employed in the context of Śiva dispatching his emissaries to ruin Arjuna's tapas. The Tiruviḷaiyāṭaṟ Purāṇam of Parañcōti is dated in the 16 th century popularized in the festivities of the Great Maturai temple during the Nāyaka period, particularly Tirumalai Nāya-   Several words in folk circulation are employed, e.g., cummāṭu-3-4 (load-pad for the head TL III, 1520); tuṟantōr-11 (those that had renounced mundane pleasures); piḷḷai-kuṭṭi-537 (children and small ones) and so on. This seems to be anti to Sanskritization. Long before the advent of the DK movement, the need for Tamilization had begun in the terukkūttu literature.
The question of why Śiva was treated a kirāta is relevant from the sociological point of view. Kirātas was also known as niṣāda (hunters of beasts or fishermen) and pāraśava that were anulomajas born to a father of higher varṇa and mother of lower varṇa. 48 Śiva's com-    These names of Śiva deserve a detailed examination visà-vis the Śivasahasranāma 47 ; e.g., ta (c. 5 th century BCE) the theme continued to receive popular appreciation through the ages down to the 19 th century. 51 During India's movement for independence kirāta was identified with the unfriended India, and the high-minded British rāj, the pretending monk 52 with the tapasvin Arjuna. The subject percolated to the realm of visual art since the Pallava to the Vijayanagara-Nāyaka time, which means societal sympathy was always on the side of the oppressed. In the delineation of artistic idiom, the folk element was dominant to emphasize the common man's vital role. Indirectly, the idea of the high-man (brāhmaṇa) and low-man (non-brāhmaṇa) was the main cause behind the formation of political parties in South India, 53 during the later half of the 19 th century that came to power toward the end of the 1960s and retains its hold over today. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those political parties that came to power based on certain ideologies of human fraternity and equality have forgotten their fundamental philosophies, a brāhmaṇa heading the party leading to worse demoralization. The man at the lower rungs of the society is suffering more, confusion is worse confounded. We need another Kirāta to appear on the stage to salvage the suffering nation. Perhaps, that may be the reason why the 'Kirātārjuniya' myth was popular in Indian literature and visual art, including the theatre, through the ages.
ing as a kirāta may be a historical justification for the elevation of the hunting tribal into the higher Vaiṣṇava (cf. Dāśarathi-Rāma and the niṣāda-Guha) and Śaiva vs. Śaṅkarācārya 49 , also consider the revolt of Dakṣa-Prajāpati against Rudra-Śiva. 50 These trends in religious history present a case for the profane heading toward the sacred. Today, there is no question of kṣatriya or śūdra. All come under the varṇasaṃkara or vrātya category because none follows the dharma expected of his professional affiliation; one may ask "who maintains the pañcāgni?" in whichever part of the world he may live. Do all the dvijas consider the yañjopavita sacrosanct? It is not the case in Tamilnāḍu.

Conclusions
The conflict between the high-man (caste Hindu, Arjuna, kṣatriya in the present study) and the under-dog (kirāta, hunter treated lower in social hierarchy) is a perpetual problem in the history of nations. The ill-treatment meted out to a "black" finally resulted in the ousting of an American President in recent time. Man was born free but everywhere he is in chains. To set an example and lead humanity toward the righteous path, God Śiva himself appears a low-man in the 'Kirātārjunīya' myth. Taking origin in the Mahābhāra-49