Lidia Sudyka (Jagiellonian University)

O

Kiratarjuniya in South India: the story as depicted in literature and art with a special reference to the Lepakshi temple

The Kiratarjuniya of Bharavi is a Sanskrit epic poem (mahakavya) belonging to the kavya literary tradition cultivated all over India from the beginning of the first millennium. The mahakavya genre, i.e. ‘great poem’, represents court culture and writers cultivating it were patronised by kings and local rulers. If so, it is reasonable to presume that pieces of work belonging to this genre in addition to the aesthetic aims described by numerous Indian theoreticians of literature could also fulfil specific tasks serving the needs of the patrons. It is not difficult to accept such an opinion in the case of so-called historical mahakavyas. These Sanskrit biographies are in fact pieces of pane­ gyric literature. The rulers and their ancestors are eulogised in them. Not much of reliable narration of historical events is offered there, nevertheless, the atmosphere of the courtly life and the ideologies hidden behind certain scenes and structure of the work can be re­ constructed. That is why they should be edited, translated and ana­ lysed in the broad historical context from which they arose. However, a great number of the mahakavyas are based on the Mahabharata or Ramayana. The question is if also in this case the work can provide extratextual pieces of information. The answer to this question was 146 Lidia Sudyka given by Indira Viswanathan Peterson’s fascinating study of the Kiratarjuriiya. The Kairataparvan is one of very few passages in the Mahabharata glorifying the god Siva. The great warrior and ardent devotee Aijuna Pandava receives the god’s revelation twice. In the Bhagavadgita Kjsna manifests his divine form to him and in the Kirata episode it is Siva who reveals himself to Aijuna. The choice of this particular episode as a theme for the ma- hakavya was definitely not fortuitous in the case of Bharavi. Ac­ cording to the information provided by Dandin (7lh-8th centuries AD), the theoretician of literature and kavya writer at the Pallava court in Kanchipuram, Bharavi was a follower of the Saiva religion. Also his patron must have been a Saiva and „Bharavi’s work might well have been written for a warrior or king who wished to be portrayed as a devout worshipper of Siva” in Indira Viswanathan Peterson’s words1. In his Avantisundarikatha Dandin mentions Bharavi as a friend of his own ancestor, a poet Damodara, bom in Maharashtra, most probably at the beginning of the sixth century AD. Dandin’s remarks con­ cerning Bharavi suggest that he lived around the middle of the sixth century and was a court poet of Visnuvardhana. It seems that his kingly patron cannot be identified with Visnuvardhana, the founder of the eastern line of the Calukyas at Vengi in eastern Deccan, as the name of Bharavi was mentioned in his elder brother’s, Pulakeśin H’s inscription, which is dated as late as 634 AD. Another king bearing this name and living in this period was Yaśodharman Visnuvardhana of the Aulikara family, who had his capital at Daśapura in Avanti and his inscriptions are dated for 533/4. Judging by the inscriptions of both kings, the dates of the reign of Yaśodharman Visnuvardhana suit better the information given by Dandin, as Warder suggests2, how­ ever, there are certain links that connect the author and the poem with South India3. It may have happened that Bharavi spent the last years of his life at the court of Calukya Visnuvardhana, esteemed as a

1 Peterson 2003: 23. 2 Warder 1990: 198, 199. 3 Lienhard 1984: 184. KiratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted... 147 renowned kavi. Another reference to Bharavi can be found in the inscriptions of the Gańgeya king, Durvinita, where the king claims to have written a commentary to the fifteenth canto of KiratarjunIya. The Gangeyas ruled the southern part of Karnataka and Durvinita most probably reigned in the second half of the sixth century. Also Dandin mentions Durvinita together with king Pallava Simhavisnu (ca. 550-585) as acquainted with Bharavi’s masterpiece. Even if one cannot be sure about the date of composing the KiratarjunIya and the kingly patron or patrons of its author, it can be safely said that by the end of the sixth century the poem was famous in the South of India and its fame spread due to the Saiva inclinations of the South Indian royal houses. The Saiva religion inspired many works of art and the image of Aijuna, the great warrior-ascetics, to whom the gods had spoken, was particularly attractive to ambitious local rulers in the South aspiring to the identification with the Great Tradition. The KiratarjunIya consists of eighteen chapters (sargas), which can be treated, as Indira Peterson Viswanathan suggests, as an allu­ sion to eighteen chapters of the Bhagavadgita*. Bharavi introduced some changes into the Kairataparvan narrative, sometimes reducing it, sometimes adding new elements to the plot. The first sarga begins with the spy’s report to the king Yudhisthira, which leads to the scene of counsel (mantra), an element prescribed by traditional theoreti­ cians for this genre. A hunter disguised as a Brahmin student54 in­ forms Yudhisthira in the presence of his brothers that the kingdom under the Kauravas is flourishing and will not be returned to them after the years of exile. This incident opening Bharavi’s mahakavya does not appear in the Mahabharata. Then the debate starts and as a result Arjuna undertakes his journey and penance in the Himalayas in order to obtain the magic Paśupata weapon. The hero’s guide and

4 Peterson 2003: 30. 5 In the Arthaśastra I. 12 different categories of the spies are presented, among them a false Brahmin students. 148 Lidia Sudyka companion is a Yaksa6, the motif which, again, is absent in the Ma­ habharata. Bharavi names the place of Aij una’s tapas as the In- draklla, whereas in the Mahabharata it remains unidentified. Perhaps the author draws on local or oral traditions as the name appears in the South Indian folk renderings of the Kirata narrative7. On the other hand the story as told by Bharavi ommits the figure of Parvati as Kirati, an extremely important character in folk versions8. Indira Viswanathan Peterson sees the reason for the omission in the fact that in kavya the presence of the beloved evokes the erotic mood9 and the forthcoming combat between Siva and Arjuna was definitely not a proper moment to allude śrńgara. The chance for śrńgara appears with the advance of Apsarases and Gandharvas (sarga VII), this motif does not appear in the Mahabharata narrative at all. It is not sur­ prising that Bharavi introduces or elaborates on different descriptions absent in the Mahabharata, nevertheless necessary for a mahakavya. Also discursive passages gain different execution than in the Ma­ habharata. The speeches of Yudhisthira, Bhlma and Draupadi, which in Bharavi’s poem come after the spy’s report, are the perfect exam­ ples of rhetoric condensed in a little bit more than two cantos, whereas in the Mahabharata the conversation covers nine chapters. Thus Bharavi adapted the Mahabharata episode according to the requirements of the mahakavya genre and perhaps to the expectations of his patron creating the image of the hero anew. Aijuna, the receiver of gods’ grace, gifts and everlasting fame is central for the whole story.

6 alakadhipabhftyadarsitam sivam urvidharavartma samprayan (KirA III.59a). 7 Peterson 2003: 34. 8 The Mahabharata text just gives the information that the Goddess accompanies Siva in the guise of a huntress and witnesses the events (MhBh III. 40.4: devya sahomaya śriman samanavratavesaya/ nanavesadharair h^slair bhutair anugatas lada //) 9 Peterson 2003: 182.' Kiratarjuniya in South India: the story as depicted ... 149

The same story, namely the Kirata episode, was presented by many South Indian painters and sculptors throughout the centuries10. The visual representations sometimes betray their indebtedness to the Kiratarjuniya of Bharavi, or to the Mahabharata, or the local ver­ sions of the story of Arjuna and the Hunter. The temple of Siva Virabhadra in Lepakshi (Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh) is one of such places in southern India which houses the depiction of the Kirata episode, both the reliefs and paintings. The temple is said to be raised thanks to the patronage of Virupanna Nayaka, a doorkeeper and treasurer to the Vijayanagara king, Acyuta Raya. Inscriptions in the temple mention Acyuta Raya as a donor and Virupanna of Penukonda as the one who granted gifts to the temple. Also VTrannna, the brother of Virupanna, is mentioned along with some other donors. These donations were made between 1533 and 1538. Besides the main shrine of Virabhadra situated in the centre of inner enclosure, there are some others dedicated to different deities. From the Eastern side there are the Parvati and Papanasesvara shrines and from the West, the Ramalińga, Bhadrakali, Hanumallińga and Raghunatha shrines. They have a common inner hall (mukha mandapa) with the sanctum sanctorum (garbhagrha) of Virabhadra. Virabhadra is con­ sidered to be the emanation of Siva’s anger which arose when he was not invited for Daksa’s sacrifice. The policy to reconcile Śaiva, Vaisnava and tribal religious traditions, which was characteristic of the Vijayanagara culture, is also visible in the Lepakshi temple. The Kiratarjuniya story appears in the Lepakshi temple twice: on the reliefs and in painting.

10 More about the Kiratarjuniya representations in South Indian art one can find in Nagaraja Rao’s Kiratarjuniyam in Indian Art (With special refer­ ences to Karnataka). The book of Kirsti Evans covers the depictions of the story in the Hoysala temples in HalebTd, Belur and Ampapura, whereas Michael D. Rabe discusses the Great Penance Relief at Mamallapuram and mentions other Indian representations of this theme in sculpture. Also John Brockington in his article “Visual Epics” mentiones some of them. 150 Lidia Sudyka

Identification of the narrative scenes on the reliefs. The narrative reliefs depicting the story of Arjuna and the Hunter were executed on the Western wall of the mukha mandapa. The narrative panel running from the South to the North is conveniently situated almost on the man-sight-height. One can move and ‘read’ the story easily. These narrative reliefs have the ornamental panels above and below, the fact which enables to separate the story on the wall and in this way helps concentrate on it. The row of elephants (below) and hamsa birds (above) does not disturb the ‘reader’ of the story at all. It unfolds before his or her eyes like a scroll with illuminated borders, one scene after another. The change of each scene is indicated by turns of movement in figures. The figures look towards the centre of each scene". Each and every element of the relief speaks for itself: the dresses, hairdos, jewellery, movements and gestures. In fact this kind of visual retelling of episodes from the epics should be consid­ ered as a separate narrative genre with its own narrative language and special demands from the audience. As was pointed out by Kirsti *

" The narrative techniques were defined and described by art historians as for instance Vidya Dehejia. According to him there are two types of monos- cenic narratives, continuous narratives, sequential narratives, synoptic narra­ tives, conflated narratives, and narrative networks (Dehejia 1997: 10-32). The compositional modes after Sanford comprise: the cinematographic type with unilinear movement from one side of the panel to the other, the collisive type usually represented by a pair of wrestling or onrushing opponents, the explosive type being an antithesis of the previous one and showing the separated comba­ tants before attacking each other again, the confrontation type including static scenes as a royal audience, a meeting, a ritual scene or a divine blessing, the central focal object type resembling the confrontation type but the two parties concentrate on an object or personage, rather than on each other (e.g. a deity flanked by worshippers, playing dice or chess) and finally the horizontal axis type with horizontal position of major figures (i.e. Visnu reclining on Sesa). More about narrative techniques by Sanford, Brilliant and Dehejia in Evans 1997 :16-21. All these modes of narrating the story enumerated by Sanford are met with in the Lepakshi Kiratarjuniya reliefs. KjratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted ... 151

Evans: “In order to complete the story the viewer must be able to read the visual clues presented by the artist”12. The story as told by a Lepakshi sculptor begins with the counsel (Fig. 1). One can see King Yudhisthira having a discussion with sage Vyasa. As we know Vyasa convinced opposing Yudhisthira that the preparations for the future war are necessary and in order to gain strength, Aijuna has to perform penance and in this way obtain ce­ lestial weapons. It was a stormy debate judging by the gestures of the two disputants. Yudhisthira’s hands are raised in the vitarka mudra (a gesture of discussion so often met in Buddhist iconography13) and Vyasa’s left hand rests firmly on his thigh, while the other is raised in the tarjarii gesture14. They both seat on a platform, facing each other. Behind Yudhisthira his four brothers are standing in a row and appear to listen attentively. The first in the line must be Bhima, a figure with a club (gada) leaning on his shoulder. He was bom as the second son of Pandu and was known as a strong man, invincible in the club fights. Arjuna stands behind Bhima with his famous bow Gandiva and his hands folded in the anjali gesture. Nakula and Sahadeva also have their hands in the anjali. All the brothers are dressed the same; they have identical headdresses15, too. Vyasa is presented in a way the personages of rsis and munis should be executed. He has plaits of hair formed into a head ornament and a beard. He wears rudraksamala, a Saivite rosary, and bracelets. The second scene shows Aijuna taking leave (Fig. 2). Aijuna is equipped with a bow and a quiver. With his both hands folded in the anjali gesture he bows down before Yudhisthira, who bestows his blessing on him (abhaya and varada mudras) and perhaps initiates

12 Evans 1997: 13. 13 The tips of the thumb and the index finger are put together and the other fingers should be straight. 14 Tarjani("threatening finger’j - this gesture means warning. The ex­ tended index finger is pointed at the opponent. 15 This type of headdress is called kiritamakuta - a conical cap sometimes ending in an ornamental top. 152 Lidia Sudyka

Aijuna with a powerful mantra'6. Then Aijuna turns back and goes away, marching into the direction of a small shrine with a linga in­ stalled in it. Then we can see a sequence in which Aijuna worships the Siva- lińga with light in the shrine (Fig. 4), the trait for which the local tradition underlining the Sivaite character of the narrative was per­ haps responsible. Only then does the penance start. Naked Arjuna with long flowing matted locks, his hands joined above his head, stands in the yogic posture16 17 on the right leg under the tree. The bow and the quiver with arrows are put aside. The next sequence seems to be influenced by the Kiratarjuniya of Bharavi, or it was an earlier local tradition used by Bharavi in his version of the Kairata narrative. The two Apsarases try to disturb Arjuna’s penance (Fig. 5 - the right-hand side of the photo). Their hair is $phe in raised buns, one of them has her breasts naked, the other has them slightly covered. They wear big earrings, bracelets, necklaces and girdles. The figures of the two ladies are shown in dance poises. They were sent by Indra to seduce Aijuna, but in vain: he is deeply emerged in the tapas. Having been informed by Ap­ sarases about their failure, Indra appears (Fig. 5 and 6) disguised as an old Brahmin in order to test Aijuna himself. In the Mahabharata the god appears immediately after Arjuna has reached the mountain. In one hand the bearded figure carries an umbrella, the other clearly forms the vitarka mudra (the gesture of discussion). Aijuna, as in the previous scene, stands under the tree wearing the loin-clothes around his waist, which was not visible in the first representation of his penance. Between the tree and the figure of the ascetic there is an object which could represent a coiled snake and on the other side

16 This scene seems to be in agreement with the Mahabharata, as in the Kiratarjuniya it is Vyasa who instructs Arjuna directly. 17 He is described in the Mahabharata as: iirdhvabahur niralambah padangusthagravisthitah (MhBh III. 39.23a). According to the Mahabharata Arjuna is dressed in grass and bark and carries a stick and deerskin (MhBh III. 39.21a: darbhaciram nivasyatha dandajinavibhusitah). Fig. 1. The dispute of Yudhisthira and sage Vyasa. (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 2. Arjuna’s leave-taking. (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 3. The view of the narrative panel and the lower border. (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 4. Arjuna’s arati to Sivalinga (right-hand side of the photo) and his penance (left-hand side of the photo). (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 5. Apsarases disturbing Arjuna in his penance (right-hand side of the photo); Indra in disguise (left-hand side of the photo). (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 6. Indra disguised as an old Brahman tests Arjuna (right-hand part of the photo); Indra reveals his divine identity before Arjuna (left-hand part of the photo). (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 7. The boar running after frightened people. (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 8. Killing of the boar. (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 9. The wrestling match between Siva and Arjuna. (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 10. Divine revelation. Arjuna receives a divine weapon from Siva. (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 11. Vyasa advising Yudhisthira to send Arjuna to the Indrakila. (Photo: J. Sudyka)

Fig. 12. Parvati and others appealing to Siva. (Photo: J. Sudyka) Fig. 13. Bhpigi, NandTkesvara and Brahma (end of scene on Fig. 12); Śiva with his retinue going to the IndrakTla. (Photo: J. Sudyka)

Fig. 14. Siva greeted by [sis. (Photo: J. Sudyka) Fig. 15. Arjuna bowing before Indra; tapas of Arjuna. (Photo: J. Sudyka)

Fig. 16. Siva addresses the boar. ParvatT and the ganas in the guise of hunters look at the next scene. (Photo: J. Sudyka) Fig. 17.The boar rushes at the sages. (Photo: J. Sudyka)

Fig. 18. Cencata huntress and Narasirnha removing a thorn from the sole of her foot. Hampi, Virupaksha temple’s column. (Photo: L. Sudyka) Fig. 19. Kiratarjuniyu on the stage of Kathakali: Arjuna and Kirata before the combat. Kerala. Tripunilhura. Purnatrayiśa temple, autumn 2005. (Photo: L. Sudyka)

Fig. 20. Kirata/Siva and Kirati/ Parvati, Tripunithura. Purnatrayiśa temple, autumn 2005. (Photo: L. Sudyka) KiratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted ... 153 there is possibly an anthill, the elements which were not present in the first picture showing Aijuna’s penance. The anthill is the entrance to the netherworlds, which is also symbolised by the snake. In the myth of the origin of the shrine in Tiruvarur the Sivaliiiga arises from an anthill, identified by Shulman with the depository of sacrificial remnants, the bone of contention between Siva and Daksa18. The anthill could also suggest that a considerable amount of time had passed - just enough for ants to build a hill. In Sravanabelagola the same idea has been suggested: Gomatesvara was completely engaged in mediation for such a long time that the vines grew around his legs and arms, the anthills appeared on both sides of him and he was unaware of the snakes moving around him19. The anthill and the snake, if really these are the objects executed by the artist on the Lepakshi relief, can also symbolise the deeper and deeper engage­ ment of Aijuna in the tapas and suggest his future encounter with Siva. It may seem that it is a snake which coils around the tree de­ lineated in the first scene of the penance (Fig. 4). If it is so, in the second penance scene the snake moves closer to Arjuna, which might be meaningful. However, it must be also stated here that the small hill can be understood as a symbolic representation of the mountain IndrakTla. If one chooses such an interpretation, a question arises why such a symbol does not appear in the earlier scene in order to convey the message that Aijuna has just reached the mountain. Anyway, the image of a small hill can be perceived as alluding to the idea of an anthill and the Indraklla mountain simultaneously20. Such a com­

18 More about the symbolism of an anthill and the connections with Śiva and Daksa myth in: Shulman 1980. The hypothesis of possible links between the Tiruvarur temple myth and Kirata narrative paintings of Lepakshi can be found in: Pachner 1985: 336. It would be also worth underlining that the Lepakshi temple is dedicated to VTrabhadra, i.e. the emanation of Siva’s anger which arose when he was not invited for Daksa’s sacrifice. 19 I owe this remark to Dr. Anna Nitecka. 20 Indian sculptors provided the spectators with the visual equivalents of pun and other figures of speech described in Sanskrit treatises on theory of 154 Lidia Sudyka promise would also suit the depiction of Kirata story in the paintings of the ranga mandapo11 ceiling, where the mountains are presented similarly and there is also an image of Arjuna sitting on such an anthill22* 21/ Indraklla mountain. There is also a chance to see a heap of fruit and a water pitcher in the mysterious objects. Bharavi mentions two stages of Arjuna’s tapas: one bringing Indra before the warrior-ascetic and the other crowned with Siva’s revelation. In the beginning Arjuna lived on fruit and water. After meeting Indra he lived on wind alone:

He had no desire for the ripe fragrant fruits that hung within reach, nor for pure, cool water. Austerity itself becomes ambrosia for good men.23

Perhaps the sculptor alludes to the fact that it was that moment of Arjuna’s penance when he still took some food and drank water. Indra pleased with Arjuna’s austerity reveals his divine form before Arjuna (the left- hand side of the Fig. 6). He appears with four arms, the upper hands holding the vajra and a sword, the lower ones forming the abhaya and Iola mudras respectively. Arjuna again dressed like a prince and with the Gandiva resting on his shoulder stands before Indra with his hands clasped in the anjali. Next, Arjuna is shown as continuing his penance in the same pose as before meeting Indra.

literature as was proved by Michael D. Rabe while discussing the Great Penance Relief at Mahabalipuram [Rabe 2001]. 21 Also called natya mandapa - a dance hall. 22 According to A.Gopala Rao: ‘An anthill has sprouted around him. Poisonous serpents are playing around his body, as if he is an inanimate object’ (Gopala Rao 1969: 83). 23 KirA X11.4; Indira Viswanathan Peterson’s translation [Viswanathan Peterson 2003: 121], KiratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted ... 155

The encounter with Siva is approaching. In Fig. 7 we observe two people taking flight from a boar. This is demon Muka sent by Siva, causing tumult everywhere. Siva in the guise of the chief of Kiratas sends his arrow towards the boar and Aijuna does it at the same time. The boar is dead but it is not obvious whose arrow killed the animal. The fight between Kirata and Aijuna starts. The next scene shows Siva and Aijuna’s duel, first with the use of bows and arrows (the partly visible figure on the left-hand side of Fig. 8 is Aijuna, in the next illustration Siva stands to the right with his bow raised above his head). Then the wrestling match starts. Fig. 9 shows lying Siva and Aijuna over him. However, there is one more person here. It is Parvati as a Kirata woman, with a feathered cap on her head and her right hand stretched. Nagaraja Rao explains that we owe this scene to the folk/oral tradition in which Parvati wants to see the auspicious mark on Arjuna’s back making him invincible. But the courageous Arjuna never shows his back. Siva designs a plan in order to satisfy his wife’s caprice: During this fight, Siva purposely fell in such a way that Arjuna came over him, and Parvati, standing behind Arjuna, could see the back of Arjuna, with broad shoulders and auspicious mark. She then indicated to Śiva that she had seen the back and auspicious mark by raising her right hand.211

So it turns out that everything is the gods’ lila. Bharavi as we already know has eliminated the figure of Parvati from his version of Aijuna and Kirata story. In the Mahabharata Par­ vati accompanies her husband as a huntress and witnesses the combat but the folk narrative makes her the authoress of the event and puts the heroism of Arjuna as the dominant of the composition. In the last scene Siva and Parvati sitting on Nandin appear be­ fore Aijuna, who pays homage to the divine couple. Siva holds an axe (paraśu) in his upper right hand, an antelope (wfgn) in his upper

24 Nagaraja Rao 1979: 18. 156 Lidia Sudyka left one and with his lower right hand he presents pasupatdstra to Arjuna. His lower left arm goes freely (Iola mudra). Arjuna, with due respect, slightly bent, receives the divine weapon. Parvati holds a flower in her right hand and her left hand is in the Iola position. The story of Arjuna and the Hunter has one more representation in the Lepakshi temple. It is painted on the ceiling of the natya mandapa. The famous Lepakshi paintings fill the bays on the ceiling and the depiction of the sequences of the narrative comes almost according to the same rules as in the reliefs. The Kirata pictures are executed over four bays around the central stone-cut lotus of heaven. Unfortunately not all the scenes are preserved. It may be said that in comparison with the reliefs the story was presented in a more ex­ haustive way. The paintings have been discussed in detail in the article of Regine Pachner Lepakshi paintings. Most of well-preserved paintings were shown in the black and white photos, unfortunately of poor quality, in the book of Kameswara Rao entitled The Lepakshi Temple. That is why we are going to present only a few pictures supple­ menting the course of narrative and, for the sake of comparison, supplying some information about the ‘language’ used by the creator of this version of the Kiratarjuniya. The story starts with Vyasa and Yudhisthira’s debate25. Vyasa is shown with a vertical moustache, beard and a knot of matted hair. In this scene both main characters wear clothes draped around their hips. Vyasa’s hipcloth is white with little red dots and ornamental border. The textile with the same border pattern wraps his upper body (Fig. 11). Yudhisthira wears white cloths with sophisticated pattern and the wrapper of the upper body is wider, wom as a shawl. Illustration 12 shows Arjuna prostrated before Indra. The painter in order to show the movement, like in an animated film, presents different shots one by one: Arjuna standing with folded hands over his head, Arjuna lying before Siva’s feet and Arjuna turning around

25 Kameswara Rao’s identification (Kameswara Rao 1982: 47). KiratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted ... 157 and heading off. The next scene depicts Aijuna standing in a yogic posture under the tree. The figure is wrapped in a ‘fresh’ white pat­ terned hipcloth, reaching ankles and the uttariya (a scarf-like piece of dress) around his neck. The ornamental borders above and below constitute the frame to the picture. In fact this persona reminds more a dancer or an actor on the stage caught in a dancing poise than an ascetic. The naked figure as depicted on the reliefs shows more suggestive power: the thin body of a man with folded hands high above his head and the face turned to the sky as if looking into the world of gods emanates the power of concentration. The next illustration shows Parvati, Narada (Fig. 13), Nandisvara, Brahma and Bhpigi (Fig. 14) informing Siva about the Arjuna’s se­ vere austerities26. Bhpigi (or Tumburu) seems to be clad as a dancer of the Vijayanagara period. The same skirts can be seen represented in the sculptures on the columns of the natya mandapa presenting danc­ ing Rambha and again Bhpigi, this time with three legs. Siva clad in a tiger skin, with uttariya around his neck has an axe (paraśu) and an antelope (męga') in his upper hands; his lower hands are in the abhaya and varada. His seat (simhasana) is ornamented with small figures of Yoga Narasimha against the white and black backgrounds altematingly. The figure with four arms and dark skin standing be­ fore Siva was identified by Kameswara Rao as Parvati27. Siva himself goes to Indrakila28 with his retinue and wife (Fig. 14, 15). The depiction of Siva29 and Parvati shows the divine couple accompanied by their retinue, the attendants hold fly whisks, um-

26 There is also another possibility of identification. Kameswara Rao claims that it can be seen as the continuation of the theme of Siva and Parvati’s marriage (Kameswara Rao 1982: 44). 2 Kameswara Rao 1982: 45. 28 Again this painting was excluded by Kameswara Rao from the KiratarjunIya narrative (Kameswara Rao 1982: 46). However, it seems that all four bays surrounding the ‘lotus of heaven’ are devoted to the Kirata story. The fact that some parts of the paintings are destroyed makes identification difficult. 29 Lepakshi paintings and sculptures create a possibility for a historian of Indian art to study almost countless representations of Siva. 158 Lidia Sudyka brellas and banners. All of them are richly dressed, even the sages living in the forest. Perhaps the painter or painters had royal proces­ sions in their minds and before their eyes while creating the murals. This region witnessed glorious moments in the history of the Vijayanagra empire, especially in the times of Acyutadeva Raya and Kjsnadeva Raya, who had the summer palace in neighbouring Penukonda. One of the ascetics welcoming Siva is seen standing in the dandavat pose (Tike a stick’ - streching the body in a straight line) and the other is prostrated on the ground likewise (Fig. 15). Siva, ParvatT and their attendants take form of Kiratas. With feathered caps and leaf-skirts they take into possession the hills and the forest. Siva as a king of Kiratas directs the boar to attack Aijuna (Fig. 16) and the boar rushes at the sages (Fig. 17). Regine Pachner described this sequence to the point: “The impact of story-telling reaches its peak in the commotion of the three sages, who try to flee from the menacing beast, whereby they stumble and fall to the ground”30. The story ends with the revelation of Siva. Siva with his wife sits on his bull Nandin as it was depicted by the sculptor on the walls of the temple. The painter depicted vividly and colourfully the landscape with its fauna and flora, the Kiratas, sages and gods. There were opinions that such ‘density’ in representation of the Kirata story in reliefs and pictures in Lepakshi can be also connected with the fact that the Vijayanagara rulers had a boar in their emblem. As the boar is the royal emblem of the Vijayanagara house (Acyuta Raya in particular put this symbol to the fore), contemporary inter­ pretation may have dwelt on a simile between the Kiratarjuniya and the religio-political situation of the kingdom. The “Persian” forest then would represent the battlefield of constant wars with the Muslim neighbours, indicated by the use of Islamic painting conventions in a similar way as Jaina manuscripts from western India depict Shahis in accordance with Muslim painting traditions. The boar would stand for the aggression of the royal house, sent as a demon by Siva to test his devotees in the kingdom, represented here by Arjuna who, like the

30 Pachner, 336. Kiratarjuniya in South India: the story as depicted ... 159

Hindus of Vijayanagara, has the task to regain the kingdom lost to his brothers.31

This interpretation goes too far in my opinion. In recent years the scholars stress the willingness of the Vijayanagara rulers to partici­ pate in the discourse of Islamicate civilization, to use the term in­ troduced by Hodgson. That process is visible in different manifesta­ tions of the Vijayanagara culture, also in art, architecture, men’s court dress and political language32. The fights with the neighbours were part and parcel of political life in every South Indian kingdom at that time. The wars with neighbouring countries under Muslim rule might not have necessarily had a religious background even if such ideology is shown in some literary works. It is worth remembering that the Vijayanagara army was also constituted by Muslim soldiers. If one wants to interpret the reliefs and paintings depicting the fight with a boar as a credo of the Vijayanagara monarchs shown allegorically, the boar cannot be treated as the representation of Muslim hostile power only. The adjective ‘Muslim’ seems to be superfluous in this case. The boar can also denote any opponent. Perhaps the main factor which could add to the popularity of the story of Aijuna and the Hunter could be connected with the fact that the tribes of hunters were also encompassed and included into the social and religious systems of this region33. The tribal deities were introduced into the Saiva and also, to a smaller degree, into Vaisnava religious milieu and then worshipped. The god who takes a form of a hunter might be particularly close to the imagination of local com­ munities. The stories about the marriage of a huntress and a god-hunter were widely diffused in the territories reigned by

31 Pachner 1985: 337. 32 More about it in: Wagoner’s article “Sultan among Hindu Kings”. 33 According to the Manusm^ti 10.43-44 many Ksatriya tribes because of neglecting sacred rites fell into the condition of Śudras, among them Kiratas. If so, it was possible to restore them to the ‘initial’ state of Ksatriyahood, provided they accept Hindu social and religious system. In this way the place in varna system was not exclusively obtained by birth. 160 Lidia Sudyka

Vijayanagra rulers34. The main plot of the story shows a tribal woman introduced as a daughter of the king of hunters, meeting a god while hunting in the forests. The most popular in the Vijayanagara empire must be the Cencata and Narasimha story. The reliefs of the huntress Cencata are met with in Hampi and other places in Karnataka and Andhra and for the cult of Narasimha and CenculaksmT the most important centre is Ahobilam or Ahobalam35. It seems that the mar­ riages between the local goddesses and Hindu gods or local folk gods treated as a manifestation of Siva or Visnu where quite a common way of introducing local cults and communities into the mainstream Hinduism. The divine marriages were the way of establishing alli­ ances and increasing power of a particular ruler, exactly in agreement with the role of marriages in India. It seems that the rise of local warriors and rulers gave more prominence to the local folk cults. However, such rulers who aspired to regional importance and imperial supremacy had to adjust to the new environment as well as their gods. It turns out that by close ‘reading’ of Kirata reliefs and paintings we are able to point out different sources of the story presented by the artist. These representations attest to the process of weaving local and oral traditions into the pan-Indian Sanskritic narrative. It seems that the Kirata episode from the Mahabharata was inexhaustible source of inspiration for poets, painters and sculptors. We could see the choices

M For instance the famous Ahobilam Vaisnva shrine dedicated to Njsimha and the Saiva temple in Srisailam associated with Mallikarjuna/Siva. According to the temple myths these two gods have married a huntress from the Ceficu tribe. The history of both temples situated in Andhra Pradesh is associated with the rulers of the Vijayanagara empire. 35 The story of Narasimha and CeficulaksmT was presented in the Sanskrit play Vasantikaparinayam ascribed to Sathakopa Yatindra Mahadeśika (the first half of the 16th century), who was the seventh superior of Ahobilam Matham. In the Vijayanagara empire history context it is also worth reminding that Nara­ simha was the family deity of the Saluva dynasty. According to the dynastic legend proclaimed in different sources the Lord of Ahobilam blessed Gundaraja and his queen Mallambika with two sons, Timma and Narasimha. KiratarjunIya in South India: the story as depicted ... 161 of different interpreters and exponents of the Kirata story. They were dependent on the external circumstances, such as their audience and their patrons’ preferences and expectations, and of course they had to act in accordance with the rules established for their respective arts, obeying certain conventions, sometimes, perhaps, surpassing them. The story is still staged as it was in the past (Fig. 19, 20)36. And it is the South of India where it gained special popularity, which means that there was an audience there ready to watch and listen to the story, starting from the king interested in propagating the idea which brings his subjects together and puts him in the centre. Ksatriya Arjuna, one who talks with the gods and obtains gifts from them, was an ideal candidate for a local ruler, a warrior and a devotee of God, to identify with. The Kirata story had many variants and translations into many languages, among them the languages used by artists. The story was recasted and adapted to the local traditions and reshaped according to the needs of its users and their time.

Bibliography

Brockington, J. L., 2002, “Visual Epics”, [in:] Indian Epic Traditions - Past and Present. Papers presented at the 16th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, Edinburgh 5-9 September 2000, ed. by Danuta Stasik and John Brockington, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 54.1. (2002), pp. 111-131. Dallapiccola, A. L., 1998, Sculpture at Vijayanagara. Iconography and Style. American Institute of Indian Studies, Manohar, New Delhi. Evans, K., 1997, The Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavata Pa­ rana in Halebid, Beliir and Amętapura. Brill, Leiden/ New York/ Koln.

36 The story is still in the repertoire of the kathakali - theatrical tradition of Kerala. 162 Lidia Sudyka

Gopala Rao, A., 1969, Lepakshi. The Andhra Pradesh Lalit Kala Akademi, Hyderabad. Kameswara, R. V., 1982, The Lepakshi Temple. T.V. Press, Tirupati. Michell, G., 1995, The New Cambridge History of India, 1, 6. Ar­ chitecture and Art of Southern India: Vijayanagara and the successor states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lienhard, S., 1984, A History of Classical Poetry. Sanskrit - Pali - Prakrit. A History of Indian Literature ed. by J. Gonda, vol. 3.1, Wiesbaden. Nagaraja Rao, M. S., 1979, Kiratarjuniyam in Indian Art (With spe­ cial references to Karnataka). Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi. Pachner, R., 1985, “Paintings in the Temple of VTrabhadra at Lepakshi”, [in:] Dallapiccola, Anna and Stephanie Zingle-Ave Lallemant (ed.), Vijayanagara: City and Empire. New Currents of Research. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 326-343. Rabe, M. D., 2001, The Great Penance at Mamallapuram. Deci­ phering a Visual Text. Institute of Asian Studies, Chemman- cherry, Chennai. Ramachandran, T. N., “The Kiratarjuniyam, or ‘Arjuna’s Penance’ in Indian Art”. Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, 18 (1950-51), pp. 1-111. Shulman, D., 1980. Tamil temple myths: sacrifice and divine mar­ riage in the South Indian Saiva tradition. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Sivaramamurti, C., 1936, “Vijayanagara Paintings from the temple at Lepakshi”, [in:] Vijayanagara Sexcentenary Volume, Dharwar. Viswanathan Peterson, I., 2003, Design and Rhetoric in a Sanskrit Court Poem. State University of New York Press, New York. Wagoner, P. B., “‘Sultan among Hindu Kings’: Dress, Titles, and the Islamicisation of Hindu Culture at Vijayanagara”. Journal of Asian Studies 55, no. 4 (Nov. 1996), pp. 851-80. Warder, A. K., 1990, Indian Kavya Literature. Vol. Ill, Second re­ vised edition, Delhi.