WHO IS THE STRONG-ARMED MONKEY WHO CHURNS THE OCEAN OF MILK? Vasudha Narayanan University of Florida The dramatic act of the divine beings (devas) and demons (asuras) churning the cosmic ocean of milk is one of the best-known stories in Cambodia. Specifically, the bas-relief illustrating this story in Angkor Wat is much celebrated. This approximately 49-metre carving unfolds on the southern side of the eastern gallery of Angkor Wat, with the central axis showing a large turtle in the lower register and Vi╓┬u in an anthropomorphic form in the middle. On either side of him are neatly arranged rows of devas and asuras, punctuated by large beings in the middle of the lines and on the two ends. The last figure in the row of devas –the very last character on the northern end of this panel– is a large monkey, holding the tail end of the serpent, V┌suki, who served as a churning rope in this celestial enterprise. This brief paper will, with a wealth of sources from multiple fields in South India (the modern states of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka where there is a Venn diagram of shared “Dravidian” languages and ethos), discuss the identity of this mysterious monkey. These sources include passages from Kampaṉ’s Tamil R┌m┌ya┬a (the Ir┌m┌vat┌ram, c. ninth or twelfth century CE); a panel from the Virupaksha temple in Pattadakal, Karnataka (eighth century CE); the Ra├gan┌tha R┌m┌ya┬a, a Telugu text dating to about the c. thirteenth century; and performing arts in Kerala. While it is certainly not the case that one needs to identify themes or characters in Khmer art with Indian literature or worldviews, in this particular case, there seem to be several sources which shed light on the churning monkey. It must also be emphasized that while these sources may be helpful in fixing the identity of the monkey, we may have to look to local Khmer socio-political conditions for further questions such as why certain figures 3 Vasudha Narayanan are included in iconographic programs.1 Although the presence of the monkey is most noticeable in the Angkor Wat bas-relief, he is also found in the churning scene at the Bayon, Banteay Chhmar,2 and possibly on a lintel at Preah Pithu.3 The discussion in this paper will focus primarily on the Angkor Wat panel. After an initial survey of scholarly discussions on the identity of this monkey, we shall move on to examining the texts and expressive arts which will illumine the issue, and conclude by acknowledging a few recent studies which establish the connections between South India and Southeast Asia. The Churning of the Ocean of Milk panel at Angkor Wat has 92 asuras and 88 devas lined up on either side, pulling the serpent V┌suki. Vi╓┬u is seen in multiple forms through the panel, most famously in the lower register as a large turtle, usually identified as his second incarnation in a series of ten, or, in some sources, as a turtle called Ak┐p┌ra. Punctuating the line of devas and asuras at regular intervals are tall figures, pulling V┌suki. According to the Bh┌gavata Pur┌┬a, a Sanskrit text which has generally been dated between the fifth and ninth centuries CE and sometimes much earlier or later (Bryant: 2002), Vi╓┬u takes many forms to help the devas and asuras with the churning (Bh┌gavata Pur┌┬a: 8. 7. 8-7; See also Mannikka 1996: 164-167). However, at the end of the row of devas, literally at the tail end of the row and the snake, is a large monkey who himself has a very large tail, helping with the churning (Fig. 1). Work on the Churning of the Ocean of Milk story in Cambodia was made possible by a senior fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies (2004-5) and a grant from the Centre for Khmer Studies. I am grateful to several scholars with whom I discussed the ideas in this paper. The idea for an independent paper on this topic first crystallized many years ago while talking with Paula Richman in London. I am also grateful to S. Palaniappan, V. Narayana Rao, Anna Dallapiccola, Joyce Clark, Blake Wentworth, Phillip Green, Siyonn Sophearith, Rich Freeman, Doris Srinivasan, and Joan Cummins for conversations and emails, discussing either texts or art works on this topic over the last few years, and to Linda Hess for her timely help with an important reference. Professor Narayana Rao most kindly translated the relevant passages from the Telugu Ra├gan┌tha R┌m┌ya┬amu just for this paper. I have also greatly benefited from the very careful reading and comments of an anonymous reviewer. All translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise noted. I have used the standard Tamil Lexicon style for transliterating Tamil. Place names are rendered without diacritics. 2 I am grateful to Siyonn Sophearith for drawing my attention to the presence of the monkey in Banteay Chhmar. 3 Only Madeleine Giteau (1951) has observed that there is a head (and only the head) of a monkey on one of the churning panels at Preah Pithu. 1 4 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? Figure 1: Monkey at the end of the row of devas in the panel depicting the story of the churning of the ocean of milk at Angkor Wat. 12th century CE. (Vasudha Narayanan) The monkey is about a head taller than the devas. He is in front of the snake but turned away from the viewer such that one can see his back and thighs; the end of the snake is partially hidden behind his back. We see his face in profile. Symmetrically, at the opposite end of the panel holding the head of the snake, is a person who seems powerful and strong, but who is behind the cord of the snake. The front side of this person’s body and head face the viewer. The identity of this figure at the head of the snake is also contested; he has multiple heads both immediately over the shoulders and then several piled up in three layers, almost like a crown. The monkey’s hands firmly grasp the tail of the snake; his left hand is parallel to the left hands of the devas. His right hand is raised high, holding the tail of the snake which rises into the upper register of the bas-relief. The monkey smiles, and we can see his teeth; and his noticeably long tail rises, as though in victory. He is adorned with jewelry carved into the panel: he has anklets on his feet, a carved band around his waist and his arms, several necklaces, and bracelets on his hands. More importantly, his head dress is similar to that of the 88 devas who are pulling the snake, and this feature is noted specifically by Coedès and Giteau, as we will see shortly. With his eyes wide open, his face smiling in happiness, his muscular body pulling the snake, his right arm victoriously raised, we have a picture of controlled energy and physical power. The identity of this monkey has never been clear as there is no character like that in Sanskrit 5 Vasudha Narayanan epics or the major Pur┌┬as in which we have several versions of the churning of the ocean of milk. Many scholars believe that this is Hanum┌n, the monkey-devotee of R┌ma. Coedès, in 1911, was the first to suggest this identity tentatively; in discussing the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat, he says cautiously: “Enfin, le grand singe qui soutient la queue de V┌suki … et qu’on retrouve au Bàyon … dans la même position, est très probablement Hanumat fidèle allié des dieux et grand dieu, lui-même” (Coedès 1911: 176). More recently, Maxwell identifies this monkey as Hanum┌n, as many have done(see, for instance, Rooney 2002: 144)for good reasons: The identity of the monkey at the end of the line of gods in particular has been much discussed. This figure from the R┌m┌ya┬a can only represent Hanum┌n, the leader of Sugr⌡va’s monkey-army and ally of R┌ma, the righteous and heroic incarnation of Vi╓┬u. His image appears on the battle standards of no less than eight of the Khmer army generals in the relief of the Royal Procession (south gallery, west wing), sometimes in exactly the same posture as here, one arm stretched forward and the other raised above his head; a Hanum┌n standard is moreover carried in front of the sacred fire (vrah vleng) which precedes the king in the same relief. He therefore appears here on the side of the gods as a symbol of generalship and the martial defence of order. The depiction of him fanning the gods with the serpent’s tail, which he wields like a huge banner, is a reference to the cooling winds that sustained the Devas during the churning: Hanum┌n was the son of the wind-god (Maxwell 2007: 25). Maxwell’s arguments about this being Hanum┌n logically rise from the many texts which speak about his preeminence. Hanum┌n is the best known of the monkey brigade and the paradigmatic devotee of R┌ma. The description of the monkey holding the serpent’s tail as “fanning the gods, ” has an aesthetic touch, but the identification of the monkey with Hanum┌n seems reasonable. He has an important role in many versions of the R┌m┌ya┬a, and because he is a half-brother of Bh⌡ma, one of the P┌┬┴avas, he also helps out in the Mah┌bh┌rata war and flies on Arjuna’s flag. I agree with Maxwell in identifying the monkey on the Khmer standards as Hanum┌n, but would it be the same monkey-god in the churning scene? There is one folk tradition from Bengal which includes Hanum┌n in an unusual version of the churning scene, not known in any other part of India. In this version of the churning story, Śiva is not happy with the distribution of the am┘ta, and a second churning takes place. This time, however, it is only poison that arises; the gods and the demons flee, and Hanum┌n apparently asks Śiva to drink the poison. When Śiva passes out because of the poison, his wife Cha┬┴⌡, as a last resort, asks Śiva’s daughter Manas┌ (whom she dislikes intensely in this narrative) to come to the scene 6 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? and save Śiva (Maity 1966: 83-84). 4 There is possibly another argument that one could make to identify this monkey as Hanum┌n. Hanum┌n is known in Indian mythology as a cirañj⌡v⌡. While this is often interpreted as “always young, ” one could possibly construe this as his always having existence, and as being around for more of Vi╓┬u’s avat┌ras than just the one as R┌ma. We just noted that he came back to fly on Arjuna’s standard in the Mah┌bh┌rata war. It is, therefore, possible to speculate—though it would be a stretch— that he was around at the time of the K┐rma avat┌ra and the churning of the ocean of milk story. But evidently, the process of identification seems to have been far more complex than this, and even Coedès appears to have been perplexed. Madeleine Giteau, writing in 1951, summarizes the discussions thus: Parfois apparaît un singe, placé le dernier dans la file des Devas, soutenant la queue du naga. Je n’ai constaté sa présence que dans les représentations les plus récentes, aux linteaux de Prah Pithu et aux grands bas-reliefs du Bayon et d’Angkor-Vat. Il est toujours coiffé du mukuta des Devas. A Angkor-Vat et au Bayon, il est d’une taille bien supérieure à celle des autres Devas. Au Prah Pithu U, on ne voit que sa tête ; au Bayon, c’est un très grand Deva reconnaissable seulement aux traits simiesques du visage ; mais c’est à Angkor-Vat qu’il est le plus réaliste, coiffé du mukuta, il est très proche des singes des divers épisodes du Ramayana. Mais qui est ce personnage ? Dans sa première étude sur les bas-reliefs d’Angkor-Vat, M. Coedès rapporte la tradition cambodgienne qui identifie le grand singe-Deva à Sugriva, mais il pense qu’il s’agirait plutôt d’Hannumat, bien que les textes sur le Barattage n’indiquent jamais ce nom. Dans le tome II du Mémoire Archéologique (Angkor-Vat, la galerie des basreliefs) le nom de Vrsâ-kapi lui est attribué… Mais dans Ramayana (Yuddhakanda, Sarga XXVIII, çloka 6 et 7) nous lisons, d’autre part, lors du dénombrement de l’armée des singes : “ Ces deux que tu vois debout, qui se ressemblent, et qui ont l’aspect de Devas, ce sont Mahinda et Dvivida ; nul ne leur est égal dans le combat. Autorisés par Brahma, ils se nourrissent tous deux de l’amrita… ” Est-ce là qu’il faudrait chercher l’origine du grand singe-Deva, bien que dans les bas-reliefs on ne voit jamais qu’un singe ? Il n’y aurait rien d’étonnant à ce que, par la suite, les Khmèrs aient identifié à Hannumat ou à Sugriva, si populaires chez eux, ces singes qui n’apparaissent que d’une façon toute épisodique dans le Ramayana (Giteau 1951: 154). 4 Maity draws primarily from the manuscripts which contain the works of the fifteenth century Bengali poet, Biprad┌s for the stories on Manas┌ but cautions that these manuscripts are not edited. He adds that since none of the extant texts were written at the time of the composers, “some interpolations… in the original composition of the poet are to be expected” (Maity 1966: 77). 7 Vasudha Narayanan The allusion to Mainda (“Mahinda”in Giteau’s essay) and Dvivida is from the section in the R┌m┌ya┬a where important personages in the monkey army are being identified to R┌va┬a. The reference to the monkeys having had ambrosia, with the permission of Brahm┌, is in the text, but neither the context of the incident nor the story, are clear. In more recent scholarship, Mannikka asserts that this monkey is Sugr⌡va, the king of the monkeys who formed the army of R┌ma in the war against R┌va┬a in the R┌m┌ya┬a. She identifies the multi-headed figure at the head of the snake as Bali,5 the king of the asuras; and extending the royal theme, she argues that the monkey on the tail end is Sugr⌡va: Bali, the large asura holding onto the head of V┌suki…, is the king of the asuras, and Sugr⌡va who holds the tail of V┌suki… is the king of the monkeys…. Sugr⌡va’s monkeys are equivalent to devas at Angkor Wat, as their fathers were gods (Mannikka 1996: 46). Although she does not provide specific reasons for her identification of the monkey as Sugr⌡va, she does acknowledge in an endnote that [s]cholars have not reached a consensus on the identity of Bali and Sugr⌡va. Although some believe that these two figures are R┌va┬a and Hanuman, no one offers any “proof ” for an opinion. The only such evidence that can be given here is the predominance of the theme of kingship, coronation, and kings in the scene itself, something that was not suspected earlier (Mannikka 1996: 306 n. 20). Roveda, too, agrees with this identification: The influence of the Ramayana in the iconography of this primordial myth is indicated by the presence, on the side of the devas, of the monkey holding the tail of the naga snake, identified as Sugriva (rather than Hanuman), and, a general with the headdress of an asura, identifiable perhaps as Vibhisnana, Ravana’s brother, and an ally of Rama.6 Other scholars say that this figure could be Hanum┌n or Sugr⌡va (see, for instance, Laur 2002: 340), and we do have plausible arguments for both lines of thinking. As Maxwell and others Bali is the king of the asuras, the main character in the story connected with the Trivikramaavat┌ra, and to be distinguished from B┌li (with a long “a”) which is sometimes a regional form of V┌li, the monkey who is Sugr⌡va’s brother. 6 Roveda 1998: 108; see also 54 where he reiterates this opinion. 5 8 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? argue, it seems possible that the large monkey can be Hanum┌n, the best-known simian in Hindu narratives, and a popular figure in Angkor iconography. Indeed, we see a powerful Hanum┌n carrying R┌ma on his shoulders in the bas-relief of the R┌m┌ya┬a war in the western corridor of Angkor Wat. Found wherever R┌ma is glorified, one can argue that if one identifies R┌ma with the generic Vi╓┬u and, secondarily, with his incarnation as a tortoise, it is Hanum┌n who is helping in the churning. It is also possible to valorize the themes of kingship and coronation, as Mannikka has done, and speculate that it is Sugr⌡va, the friend and ally of R┌ma, who is in this scene. And indeed, as we will see shortly, that at least according to one thirteenth-century source, this is a distinct possibility. 7 Thus, for more than a century now, scholars have either identified the monkey as Hanum┌n or Sugr⌡va, or perhaps as coming from local sources; and there has not been much progress on this front since 1911 when Coedès wrote: Il serait vain de rechercher si les sculpteurs ont eu le dessein d’illustrer un texte déterminé. Le mythe fait partie du fonds commun aux épopées et aux Pur┌┬as. Il semble d’ailleurs avoir reçu au Cambodge l’empreinte de traditions locales, car il n’est pas un seul texte purement indien qui nomme Hanumat parmi les dieux ayant pris part au barattement (Coedès 1911: 176). Based on multiple, diverse, and pervasive sources –including textual– in South India, however, I would like to argue that this monkey helping so enthusiastically with the churning of the ocean of milk is neither Hanum┌n nor Sugr⌡va, but Sugr⌡va’s older brother, V┌li. 8 V┌li is certainly known in Khmer iconography. A stunning carving of Sugr⌡va and V┌li fighting each other in a fraternal battle-to-death is seen in a larger-than-life Koh Ker sculpture, now in the National Museum of Phnom Penh (Fig. 2). There is also a lesser known oral tradition which places J┌mbav┌n in the scene of the churning of the ocean of milk. Although J┌mbav┌n is generally depicted as a monkey, he is considered to be the king of ┘k╓as. The V┌lm⌡ki R┌m┌ya┬a (5:44: 9-10) does not draw a clear line between ┘k╓as and v┌naras, or monkeys. See Ludvik, 1997, 111. There is, however, no evidence that he actually helped churn the ocean of milk. 8 I have used the Tamil spelling of V┌li, as used by Kampaṉ, throughout this text. 7 9 Vasudha Narayanan Figure 2: The fight of V┌li and Sugriva from Prasat Chen; Koh Ker style, 10th century CE, National Museum of Cambodia. (Vasudha Narayanan) It is also repeated in several friezes, as in the western pediment in Banteay Srei as well as in a carving at the Musée Guimet (Figs. 3 and 4). Figure 3: V┌li and Sugr⌡va fighting. Western entrance, Banteay Srei, c. 967 CE. (Vasudha Narayanan) 10 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? Figure 4: V┌li and Sugr⌡va fighting. Wat Baset, Battambang District, 11th century CE, now at Musée Guimet. (Vasudha Narayanan) The theme of two brothers fighting for the throne certainly seems to have struck a sensitive nerve among patrons of art in Khmer history. There is also a moving depiction of V┌li’s death in the southwest corner pavilion of Angkor Wat (Fig. 5). Figure 5: Death of V┌li, Angkor Wat, Southwest Corner Pavilion, Angkor Wat, 12th century CE. (Vasudha Narayanan) 11 Vasudha Narayanan But while carvings of V┌li and Sugr⌡va are common, and Hanum┌n certainly appears in several panels, there are very few examples of a monkey in the churning scene in Cambodia. A monkey is present in two (predominantly) Buddhist sites in the churning scene –in Bayon and in Banteay Chhmar– and we noted Giteau’s assertion that a monkey’s head is seen in one of the churning lintels in Preah Pithu (Fig. 6). Figure 6: Churning Panel, Preah Pithu. The monkey’s head is to the viewer’s left, the last figure in the line of devas. (courtesy of Siyonn Sophearith) We do, however, have texts and expressive arts in South India which place V┌li at the churning scene. A striking example–though not necessarily the earliest–comes from Kampaṉ’s R┌m┌ya┬a. 9 The date of Kampaṉ, author of the famous Ir┌m┌vat┌ram (“The R┌ma Avat┌ra”), is much disputed.10 Scholars are divided on two very different dates: ninth or twelfth century CE, and the jury After having done the research for this paper, I was delighted to find that Jean Filliozat had also thought of this monkey as V┌li and cites a verse from Kampaṉ, as well as the South Indian texts, the undated Sanskrit K┌ñcimah┌tmya, which was the inspiration for the Tamil K┌ñcippur┌┬am composed by Civa┤┌nacuv┌mi (d. 1785). Filliozat makes this point in a brief article which discusses the significance of the R┌m┌ya┬a in Southeast Asia. See Filliozat 1993: lxvii – lxviii. Blake Wentworth (email correspondence) has also independently identified the verses in the eighteenth-century K┌ñcippur┌┬am which deal with V┌li’s participation in the churning as Ma┬ika┬┼ecappa┼alam 14. 10 I have used the on-line version of Kampaṉ’s Ir┌m┌vat┌ram in this paper. There is a wealth of scholarship on Kampan in many languages. For many excellent articles on Kampaṉ’s Ir┌m┌vat┌ram, see for instance, Shulman, 1978, 1979, 1987. 9 12 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? is still out on a definitive date. We will come back to the vexing issues of dating this work towards the end of this paper. In Kampaṉ’s R┌m┌ya┬a, we hear several times that V┌li participated in the churning of the ocean of milk. For example, in the Cuntara K┌┬┼am (Sundara K┌┬┴a), Hanum┌n, in talking to S⌡t┌ about V┌li’s strength, says: V┌li, who is older than Sugr⌡va, is the victorious one, who tied the strong R┌va┬aṉ tight to his tail, such that [the demon’s] power was blown apart! He then leaped and jumped in eight directions. When the devas beseeched [V┌li], he, the one with strong arms, used as a churning rod the mountain, circled by the snake, —whose body was worn thin when it grated against the mountain, until the nectar rose….11 This verse refers to two stories unique to South India. In this paper, we are focusing on the second one, where the devas asked V┌li to help them with the churning. V┌li apparently agreed; the Tamil story indicates that the girth of the snake was too big and that the devas could not grasp it firmly, and that one way in which V┌li helped was to make the snake’s body thinner by rubbing it against the mountain. The first allusion in the above verse –V┌li tying R┌va┬a by his tail and thrashing him in all eight directions–refers to R┌va┬a’s early connection with the monkey-king. While this incident is noted many times in the Tamil stories and oral tradition, as well as in the Kerala Teyyam dances, it is not found in V┌lm⌡ki or North Indian sources. R┌va┬a apparently tried to harass V┌li while he was performing rituals in the sea; in some accounts, V┌li is doing his sandhy┌vandanam (rituals which are done three times a day by men of the “upper” castes who wear the sacred thread); in other versions, it is the tarpa┬am or ancestor rituals. V┌li’s regular way of performing these was to go to the ocean in 11 maṛṛu avaṉ muṉṉōṉ vāli; irāvaṇaṉ vali taṉ vāliṉ iṛṛu ukakkaṭṭi, eṭṭuticaiyiṉum eḻuntu pāynta veṛṛiyaṉ; tēvar vēṇṭa, vēlaiyai vilaṅkal mattil cuṛṛiya nākam tēya, amutu eḻa kaṭainta tōḷāṉ 30 Irāmāvatāram 5.4.30 (Cuntara Kāṇṭam) 13 Vasudha Narayanan different quarters of the land –some say, the earth itself– and do the rituals. When R┌va┬a tried to sneak up and bother V┌li, the monkey, without batting an eyelid, apparently wrapped the edge of his tail around the squirming R┌va┬a; and everytime he lashed his tail, he dunked the hapless demon in the ocean. Finally, he let go of R┌va┬a who never, ever, troubled him again. In some oral traditions of this story, V┌li even ties up R┌va┬a as a mobile toy for his son to play with in the cradle. Kampaṉ talks about V┌li being in the churning of the ocean of milk scene not just once, but several times in his Tamil R┌m┌ya┬a. We hear of V┌li’s participation in the enterprise in the Ki┼kint┌ K┌┬┼am (Ki╓kindh┌ K┌┬┴a), frequently in the context of a description of his unbounded strength. When Hanum┌n first introduces the name of V┌li and illustrates his might to R┌ma, it is the churning story that he describes: By the grace of [Śiva] who protects the ocean of the faultless Vedas, lives in the mountains, and bears the trident, V┌li obtained his boundless strength. Standing with the devas, and the demons, when the whirling Mandara’s form was worn out and the wrathful snake’s belly hissed fire, [V┌li], the one with strong shoulders, churned the swirling sea.12 In another chapter in the same canto when T┌r┌, V┌li’s wife, tries to dissuade him from going out and accepting his brother Sugr⌡va’s challenge for a rematch, V┌li boasts of his role in the churning of the ocean of milk in many verses. He reminds her of his own strength, thus: The towering mountain Mandara was the churning rod; V┌suki, who has no end, was the churning rope; The anchor-stone was [Vi╓┬u] who bears the Wheel 12 nālu vētam ām navai il ārkali vēli aṉṉavaṉ, malaiyiṉ mēl uḷāṉ cūlitaṉ aruḷtuṛaiyiṉ muṛṛiṉāṉ vāli enṛu uḷāṉ varampu il āṛṛalāṉ 37 kaḻaṛu tēvarōṭu avuṇar kaṇṇiṉ niṉṛu uḻalum mantarattu uruvu tēya muṉ aḻalum kōḷ arā akaṭu tī viṭa cuḻalum vēlaiyaik kaṭaiyum tōḷiṉāṉ 38 Kampaṉ, Irāmāvatāram 4.3.37-38 (Kiṭkintā Kāṇṭam) 14 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? the moon was the support;13 in high spirits, the immortal ones, beginning with Indra, and others pulled on opposite sides. Oh my wife, beautiful as a peacock, with words as sweet as a koel-bird! Do you forget– when, as the [devas] pulled and the mountain turned around, seeing that they were bereft of energy and tired, I, then, seized the rope and churned the ocean like it was a pitcher of yogurt; procured the nectar— and gave it to them?14 It is almost like Kampaṉ was writing about an eighth-century sculpture that one can see in Karnataka. There are not too many sculptures which show a monkey in a churning scene, but we find one in the Virupaksha temple, Pattadakal, which seems to portray in stone what Kampaṉ narrates in words (Fig. 7). The Virupaksha temple was built around 740 CE by Lōkamah┌dev⌡, the Queen of the Chalukya king, Vikram┌ditya II (733-745 CE), to mark her husband’s victory over the Pallavas in Kanchipuram. There are two churning scenes in the Pattadakal temple complex. One is in the Virupaksha, and the other is in the Mallikarjuna temple.15 Both occur in pillars in which we see sculptures in horizontal panels. In both pillars, the churning story with devas and asuras lined up on two sides, churning rod on top of a turtle, is in the second horizontal panel from the top. Just above the churning scene in the pillar in the Virupaksha temple, the top panel has a carving inside an arch-like frame for the relief. Here we see a large monkey/ape-like being, holding a snake as a rope swirled around a churning rod. The rod sits on top of a turtle. Across from him are little figures who cannot be identified; but if we hold Kampaṉ’s verse to illumine this panel, we 13 T┐┬ which can be translated as “pillar,” may also refer to the weight on top of the churning pole. 14 Mantara neṭu varai mattu, vācuki antam il kaṭai kayiṛu aṭai kal āḻiyāṉ cantiraṉ tūṇ etir tarukkiṉ vāṅkunar Intiraṉ mutaliya amarar ēṉaiyōr 26 peyarvuṛa valikkavum, miṭukku il peṛṛiyār ayarvuṛal uṛṛatai nōkki, yāṉ atu tayir eṉakkaṭaintu avarkku amutam tantatu mayil iyal kuyil moḻi! maṛakkal āvatō? 27 Kampaṉ, Irāmāvatāram 4.7. 26-27 (Kiṭkintā Kāṇṭam, vāli vataippaṭalam) 15 See George Michell: 2002 for further reading on this site. 15 Vasudha Narayanan Figure 7: Panel showing churning scenes at the Virupaksha Temple, Pattadakal, Karnataka. Early 8th century CE. (Vasudha Narayanan) realize it could be Indra and other devas. In the sculpture in the Virupaksha temple, it looks like in the top panel, V┌li is single-handedly twirling the mountain with the snake-rope; and in the lower panel, there is a standard depiction of the churning of the ocean of milk with the devas and asuras lined up on two sides of the mountain. This close proximity of the two panels seems to suggest that they are connected. 16 Indeed, Vasundhara Filliozat also identifies the monkey-like figure in the Virupaksha temple as V┌li. Her identification is based on a verse from the Tattvasa├graha R┌m┌ya┬a (Ki╓kindh┌ K┌┬┴a), which is quoted in the Pur┌┬an┌ma, a Kannada language encyclopedia.17 It A. K. Bhattacharyya, however, identifies the figure who looks like a monkey in this panel as an asura. Bhattacharyya says that “[h]ere in one of the top panels the Churning scene is depicted with one of the asuras representing their clan holding the mouth of the Serpent V┌suki as also helping to entwine it around the Churning pillar, Mandara” (Bhattacharyya 1959: 125). George Michell, on the other hand, identifies this figure as Garuda pulling the snake Shesha (Michell 2002: 52). However, since there is no textual (or other) account that has yet come to light which speaks of one asura helping to lasso the serpent around the mountain and since (a) we do, on the other hand, have a narrative of V┌li churning the ocean alone; (b) there is no text saying that Garuda helped with the churning; on the contrary, some texts (see for instance, Bh┌gavata Pur┌┬a 8. 6. 39) explicitly say that Garuda was dismissed from that scene because of his enmity to snakes; and (c) the churner’s face looks like that of a monkey, I am inclined to interpret this panel as V┌li churning the ocean. 17 I am grateful to Dr. Vasundhara Filliozat for sharing the relevant pages from the manuscript of her forthcoming book on Pattadakal. Email correspondence July 14, 2013. 16 16 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? must be noted however, that there is a puzzling sculpture, similar to the one described above, in the Mallikarjuna temple, immediately adjacent to the Virupaksha temple (Fig. 8). The Mallikarjuna temple was built by Trailōkamah┌dev⌡, the sister of Lōkamah┌devi and a junior queen of Vikram┌ditya. It is similar to the one constructed by Lōkamah┌devi but is unfinished in some parts. t Figure 8: Two churning panels in Mallikarjuna Temple, Pattadakal, c. 8th century CE (Vasudha Narayanan) Here, in one of the pillars, right under a Durga relief, are two panels depicting the churning. The lower one is a traditional portrayal of the churning with the devas and asuras lined up on either side. The middle panel, however –the one just under Durga and right above the churning– shows an individual holding the churning rod and churning alone, very much like the figure with the monkeyvisage in the Virupaksha temple. However, the figure on this panel in the Mallikarjuna temple has a crude, unfinished face. I have not been able to identify this figure with certainty; while it is possible it is a more human depiction of V┌li, it is most probably a depiction of Ajita, a form of Vi╓┬u, attempting the churning alone.18 Even without the sculpture in the Virupaksha temple, it is fairly clear that the story of V┌li churning the ocean of milk is used time and again to illustrate his strength. Kampaṉ mentions the “When the ocean was churned by the devas and by the asuras and the nectar [of immortality] did not appear, Ajita (the unconquerable one) himself began to churn. ” Bh┌gavata Pur┌┬a 8. 7. 16. I would like to thank Dr. Ananth Rao for concurring with this possible identification through personal communication, June 4, 2012. 18 17 Vasudha Narayanan same incident several other times his work (including the Yutta K┌┬┼am or the Canto of the War, 6. 12. 17 and 6. 31. 48), clearly saying that the churning was successful only because of V┌li. When V┌li’s wife, T┌r┌, beholds his dead body, she chooses –of all the stories she can tell about her husband– to allude in three verses to his role in the churning of the ocean of milk. She wails in grief, asking if the devas in heaven are welcoming V┌li there now, saying that they are alive only because V┌li procured and gave them the nectar of immortality.19 In some verses, we are told that he stepped in when the devas pleaded for help –and it is in this way, that he is depicted at Angkor Wat in the large bas-relief; in other verses, he jumps in and twirls Mandara singlehandedly with the ease of churning a jar of buttermilk or yogurt. In one verse, we hear that the girth of the snake was too big, and he helped to mould its shape such that the devas and the asuras could hold it; in others, we hear that he was there to take over the churning. There seem to be a few minor variations of this story. Before we leave Kampaṉ, we should note that apart from these many explicit descriptions of V┌li in the churning scene, there are many other allusions to the narrative in passing, especially in the chapter where Sugr⌡va meets R┌ma (Ki┼kint┌ K┌┬┼am, chapter 3: “The Formation of Friendship”). Hanum┌n’s shoulders are like Mandara (4. 3. 1); Hanum┌n happily announces the arrival of R┌ma in the Ki╓kindh┌ forest and dances as Śiva did after he had drunk the poison when the ocean was being churned (4. 3. 2); and V┌li, “with the arms he had used to churn the ocean, ” is said to have hit Sugr⌡va (4. 3. 64). Another South Indian literature source, the Telugu Ra├gan┌tha R┌m┌ya┬a, which was composed around the thirteenth century CE, also talks about V┌li’s involvement with the churning of the ocean of milk, with a couple of major differences. In this text, Sugr⌡va, V┌li’s brother, is also present at the churning scene; and second, T┌r┌, who is said to come out of the churning, is gifted to both Sugr⌡va and V┌li. To the best of my knowledge, this gifting of T┌r┌ to both brothers is only found in this text. The relevant passages which place both the monkey-brothers at the scene are located in a conversation between R┌ma and Sugr⌡va: R┌ma asked: King of monkeys, how did your elder brother become your enemy? Sugr⌡va said: “…R┌ma, let me tell you the entire story, of how V┌li became my enemy. When the gods came to churn the ocean, made the Mandara Mountain the churning rod, and V┌suki the churning rope, they asked us with great respect and, we with all our wisdom and strength hung to one side of the rope. All the gods, falcons, snakes, demons, Siddhas, and S┌dhyas churned the ocean. Poison came out of the ocean and began to burn the worlds, Śiva swallowed it, and then as a wonder, the Elder woman, Jye╓┼ha was born. King Kali lovingly took her. A number 19 For a discussion of these remarks, see, Shulman 1979: 657-58. 18 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? of objects came from the ocean worthy of praise and each one took whatever suited their wishes. The Airav┌ta elephant, the goat, the buffalo, the crocodile, the female elephant, the horse, and the bull, — and Indra and other lords of space took them for their vehicles. When Lak╓m⌡ arrived with auspiciousness as her own quality, N┌r┌ya┬a fell in love with her and made her his queen, then the moon came, and the women of the gods. From among them, gods gave us the woman called T┌r┌ and we took her with love. When all of us churned the ocean Am┘ta, the essence of life came out. All of the gods took it with great joy along with the wishing tree, the giving cow, and the moon. Then the gods gave us leave and we returned with pleasure to our land and lived with the woman. Sometime later, I married Ruma, the daughter of Sushena. (Translated by V. Narayana Rao)20 The Hindi translation in the twentieth century closely follows the original: “when [during the time of churning the ocean], the devas made Mount Mandara into a churning rod and V┌suki into a rope, they, knowing about the strength of our arms, pleaded with us. Then both V┌li and I, to help with the churning stood together on one side, and on the other side were the, the devas, Garu┴as, Siddhas, …. asuras and others. [A list of all that came out of the churning follows]…. And then, the moon and the celestial enchanting beings were born. From these beauties, the devas then took the beautiful one called “T┌r┌” and gifted her to us and we then held on to her. ”21 Since Sugr⌡va is narrating this tale, it stands to reason that he is part of the action and that T┌r┌ is given to both him and to V┌li. Other texts say she was V┌li’s wife initially, but the main point to be noted in this Telugu version of the R┌m┌ya┬a is that, here too, V┌li is present at the scene. Sugr⌡va’s presence is also to be noted; and so, there is at least one textual passage which may bear out Manikka’s identification of the monkey in the churning scene as Sugr⌡va. The preponderance of the evidence, however, is on just V┌li being at the churning scene. We have noted substantial support for this from Tamil, Kannada (Pattadakal), and Telugu cultures. To complete the shared “Dravidian” ethos of this story, we can also consider the significant evidence Ki╓kindh┌ K┌┬┴amu, pp. 177-178 in Gōna Buddha Bh┐pati (author of Pûrva R┌m┌ya┬a) and K┌ca Bh┐pati and Vitthala Bh┐pati (authors of the Uttara-R┌m┌ya┬a), Ra├gan┌tha-R┌m┌ya┬amu, Purva-Uttara K┌┬┴amulu. Hyderabad: Telugu Visvavidyalayam, 1989. I am greatly indebted to Professor Velcheru Narayana Rao for kindly translating the relevant verse for me. 21 Ra├gan┌tha R┌m┌ya┬a, by Raja Gonabuddha, translated into Hindi by Sri AC Kamakshi Rao, Patna, India: Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad, 1961. I have translated this passage which is from section 4. 4 (179-180) of the Hindi translation of the text. 20 19 Vasudha Narayanan from Kerala. Here, in the Teyyam dances, where the performer assumes the guise of a character from the epics and becomes possessed with divine energy and even speaks as the deity itself, we find many dances focusing on “B┌li” (V┌li). 22 Discussing its history, Rich Freeman translates the Teyyam of V┌li, the long-tailed one: At the time when Mannaram [i. e. Mandara] was lowered in churning the deep, The gods saw the beautiful T┌ra had come there. Saying “Praise, they made T┌ra a wife for B┌li [V┌li]. Praised be stainless Long Tail! May you be my support! (Freeman 2001: 197) Freeman notes that this story “alluded to in the most archaic of his Teyyam pieces, gets expanded elsewhere in the songs” and that “early documentation of this myth occurs in Kerala in the original text of the Abhi╓ekan┌┼aka itself…. . In Kerala the myth appears again in the great R┌m┌ya┬a Campu of the fifteenth century, a number of Kathakali plays, and is especially relished in both of the eighteenth century B┌li street-plays, (tu║║als) of Kuñcan Namby┌r” (Freeman 2001: 214). The story of the churning of the ocean of milk establishes B┌li [i. e., V┌li] as a great hero, superior to the gods and finds greater elaboration later in B┌li’s teyyam songs. It tells how the gods proved too weak to finish churning the milk-ocean with Mount Mandaram, in their efforts to extract all the delectable of creation. So, mighty B┌li came to their aid, and seizing the serpent V┌suki as his rope, he churned the sea by spinning this great mountain (Freeman 2001: 198). While most of the evidence that I have discussed so far in this paper comes from about the eighth-fourteenth centuries CE, 23 and only from South India, we also see a painting from c. midnineteenth century in which a monkey is near the churning scene. The British Museum has a painting with a single asura and a monkey on opposite sides, involved in the act of churning with the mountain and the snake (Fig. 9). Extensive discussion on the Teyyam dances and also on the birth of V┌li is to be found in Rich Freeman, 2001. Arguably, it is a most vexing project to date these Teyyam pieces, and one cannot say anything definitive about the time of composition, “other than to say that it is not, like pure ‘folk-literature, ’ purely modern and oral, but that strata of it are definitely premodern (being rote-liturgical, linguistically archaic, and sometimes passed down in palm-leaf mss. ) reaching back into the “medieval” of uncertain temporal depth. ” Freeman, personal correspondence. 22 23 20 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? Figure 9: V┌li and an asura churning the ocean. 19th century painting. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Asia 1993, 0806, 0. 7 Brooke Sewell Permanent Fund. That this painting is also from South India should not surprise us; Rich Freeman most persuasively argues that “[the] myth exemplifies a number of those whose narrative elements go back not to the prototype of V┌lm⌡ki or other such Sanskrit works, but to a shared south Dravidian literary and folk heritage of the Keralas and other Tamils” (Freeman 2001: 198). The Teyyam dances, along with the other evidence from Tamilnadu, Andhra, and Karnataka, seem to point to the monkey in the churning panel at Angkor Wat being V┌li. In addition to the materials from South India, we have contemporary ethnographic data from Cambodia itself which, intriguingly enough, sets V┌li in the scene of the churning. In the careful evidence gathered by Siyonn Sophearith, et al. in Cambodia, we see V┌li’s presence in the background story for the dāñ brăt, a traditional rope-pulling that resembles a tug-of-war. This game, which is played during the traditional New Year, involves two teams pulling a rope. The origin story for the game says that the rope was a snake pulled by the demons and the gods; the gods were afraid they would lose, until V┌li appeared and came up with a strategy. He advised the gods to have someone tickle the snake’s navel and that would move it in a way that the demons would lose control. While the origin and provenance of this game is not clear, it is certainly a fascinating story to show that V┌li still lives–and for many reasons. 24 Bong Sovath, Vin Laychour, Chy Rotha, Siyonn Sophearith, Tuy Lida, Tan Sovann Oudom, “Research on the Teanh Prot (Traditional Rope Pulling) in Cambodia. ” Final Report, May 2013. Unpublished manuscript. 24 21 Vasudha Narayanan Where does this take us? Before we address this question, we should briefly consider the dating of the evidence presented in this article. As in many cases to do with Indian literature, dating is extremely difficult, since layers and layers are packed on over the centuries. Kampaṉ’s date is either the ninth or the twelfth century CE, depending on how one reads the Śaka date given in the beginning of the work. While the simplest and most direct interpretation seems to be the ninth century, manipulation of the Tamil words giving the date could lead one to the twelfth century CE.25 The Telugu R┌m┌ya┬a is said to be around the thirteenth century, and the most conservative dates one could possibly put on the early sections of the Teyyam dances goes to about the fourteenth century. The Pattadakal sculpture, on the other hand, is early eighth century CE, and it would be just a little before the date attributed to Kampaṉ, if one takes the ninth century as the correct one. It would, however, be a mistake if we were to take Kampaṉ as the starting point of the story. Rather, what we can take away from this discussion is (a) a shared South Indian ethos of the story and (b) that these narratives and art forms are the result of a longer tradition which includes this and other stories not necessarily seen in V┌lm⌡ki or in other north Indian versions. I have shown elsewhere that the āḻvārs, Tamil poet-saints, who lived between the seventh and ninth centuries CE, had access to narrative traditions that are unknown to us, and have referred to stories and incidents from the R┌m┌ya┬a not seen in V┌lm⌡ki (Narayanan: 1994). This has also been seen in many other parts of India. What we have then, given the twelfth-century dating of the churning panel at Angkor Wat, is a situation where those who were in charge of the iconographic program there as well as those who produced the poetry and art forms in South India, probably had access to and engaged with the similar traditions prevalent in a large geographic region. It is not clear how precisely these stories were transmitted on both sides of the Bay of Bengal, but V┌li’s appearance in the churning scene in South India as well as in Angkor strongly suggests that people in both places drew from common pools of narratives and lore; but what got valorized and when depended on the socio-political conditions in local cultures. How did these traditions travel? While there are many lacunae in our understanding of the connections between South India and Southeast Asia, and it is not the purpose of this paper to review the scholarship of transmission studies, it would perhaps be helpful to point out the work which shows that such connections were reasonably deep-rooted. This is not to deny connections from other parts of India; in fact, it is assumed here that there were a plurality of routes and connections. It is also not to deny the great significance of Sanskrit in Southeast Asia or to connect Sanskrit only A persuasive argument for the earlier date is made by M. Arunachalam, 1999. Blake Wentworth has shown, however, in his lecture notes (sent through personal correspondence, June 4, 2013) with very careful arguments that a twelfth century date is to be preferred. 25 22 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? with North India; as is well celebrated, Sanskrit texts have been composed and have flourished in South India. We know from current research there must have been many strong networks in place; further, we can be certain that there was reciprocal transmission between South India and Southeast Asia. Although, after an extraordinarily detailed and brilliant study of Śiva in Kambujadeśa, Alexis Sanderson says: “[w]hat we do not find among the Khmers or their neighbours in mainland and maritime Southeast Asia is any trace of that range of ancillary Šiva-forms that has seemed so central to students of Šaiva India because they are found throughout the Šiva temples of the Tamil-speaking South… . , ” he soon thereafter cautions: “. . . . while it is entirely possible that the Khmers received their Šaivism from sources other than the Tamil South, there is as yet no evidence that definitely excludes that region. On the contrary there is evidence of South-Indian influence in other spheres that should make us hesitate to do so in this” (Sanderson 2003: 444-445). Hermann Kulke refers to these “other spheres, ” giving some examples: “The first distinct South Indian influences are usually linked with the famous Buddhist art of Amaravati, and the Pallava Grantha of present day Indonesia’s earliest inscriptions in the fifth century AD, followed by the strong impact of Pallava and Chola art and architecture in Southeast Asia” (Kulke 2009: xiii). One such instance of where and how early the script connected with the Pallava style traveled is seen in an explanatory sign near an inscription in the Ubon Ratchathani museum. This sign says: “Inscription at Pak Dom Noi: Pallava alphabet (sic ), Sanskrit language, 6th-7th century AD, move[d] from Pak Dom Noi, the right bank of Mun river, Sirindhom district, Ubonratchathani. ”26 Karashima and Subbarayalu have documented several inscriptions which link the Chola dynasty of South India with Southeast Asia; in 1020 CE, the Kambhoja king sends a chariot as a gift to the Chola king, seeking friendship; and in 1114, the Kambhoja monarch sends a gemstone to Kulottunga I, which he places in the Chidambaram temple (Karashima and Subbarayalu 2009: 279 and 283). We do know for sure that by the eleventh century CE, Rajendra Chola of South India took the unusual step of sending a naval expedition –a military one– to Southeast Asia (Kulke, Kesavapany, and Sakhuja 2009: 1-19; 61-95). The painstaking work of Jan Wissemann Christie, Kenneth Hall, Hermann Kulke, Tansen Sen, Noboru Karashima, and Y. Subbarayalu (among many others) has established military and commercial connections between South India and Southeast and East Asia, which contextualizes how traditions such as these stories could have moved easily in both directions in the Bay of Bengal. While studies in the communications and connections between South and Southeast Asia in maritime trade are burgeoning now, we have the opportunity to draw on a diverse set of scholarly 26 Transcribed from a picture I took of the sign near a stele in the Ubon Ratchathani Museum in 2007. 23 Vasudha Narayanan works to see when and how these relationships have been forged. In particular, it would be useful to see how religious personnel and objects of material religion traveled alongside cultural traditions and textual matters. We do not have evidence at this point to say that the story of V┌li being at the churning scene came from Cambodia to South India, though that would be an interesting line of thought; nor do we have evidence to say that the builders of Angkor Wat knew Kampaṉ, though that may well be the case. What we can say is that both sets of people, divided by the Bay of Bengal, have churned the ocean of narrative, drawn the treasures from it, and depicted stories which were significant for them, probably for very different reasons. 24 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? WORKS CITED Arunachalam M. 1975. “The Date of Kambar. ” In Kamban Vizha Malar, Chennai: Kamban Kazhagam, 81-99. Bhattacharyya AK. 1959. “The Theme of Churning of the Ocean in Indian and Khmer Art. ” Arts Asiatiques 6/2 : 121-134. Bong Sovath, Vin Laychour, Chy Rotha, Siyonn Sophearith, Tuy Lida, Tan Sovann Oudom. 2013. “Research on the Teanh Prot (Traditional Rope Pulling) in Cambodia.” Final Report. Unpublished manuscript. Bryant E. 2002. “The Date and Provenance of the Bhagavata Purana. ” Journal of Vai╓┬ava Studies 11/1: 51-80. Christie JW. 1998. “The medieval Tamil-language inscriptions in Southeast Asia and China. ” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 29/2: 239-268. Coedès MG. 1911. “Les bas-reliefs d’Angkor-Vat”. Bulletin de la commission archéologique de l’ Indochine, 170–220. Dallapiccola A. 2010. South Indian Paintings: A Catalogue of the British Museum Collection. London: British Museum Press. Filliozat J. 1993. “The R┌m┌ya┬a in Southeast Asian Sanskrit Epigraphy and Iconography. ” In A Critical Inventory of R┌m┌ya┬a Studies in the World. Volume 2. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi and Bruxelles: Union Académique International. Freeman R. 2001. “Thereupon Hangs a Tail: The Deification of V┌li in the Teyyam Worship of Malabar. ” In Questioning Ramayanas: a South Asian tradition, ed. P Richman, Berkeley: University of California Press, 187-220. Gōna Buddha Bhūpati, Kāca Bhūpati and Viṭṭhala Bhūpati. 1989, Raṅganātha-rāmāyaṇamu, PūrvaUttara kāṇḍamulu. Hyderabad: Telugu Viśvavidyālayam. Giteau M. 1951. "Le Barattage de l'Océan dans l'ancien Cambodge." Bulletin de la Société des Études Indochinoises, XXVI /2 2 TRIM, 141-159. Kampaṉ. Ir┌m┌vat┌ram. http://www.chennailibrary.com/kambar/ramayanam.html Karashima N, Subbarayalu Y. 2009. “Ancient and Medieval Tamil and Sanskrit Inscriptions Relating 25 Vasudha Narayanan to Southeast Asia and China. ” In Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Maritime Expeditions to Southeast Asia ed. H Kulke, K Kesavapany, V. Sakhuja. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 271-291. Kulke H, Kesavapany K, Sakhuja V, eds. 2009. Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Maritime Expeditions to Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Laur J. 2002. Angkor: An Illustrated Guide to the Monuments. Paris: Flammarion. Ludvik C. 1997. Hanuman: In the Ramayana of Valmiki and the Ramacaritamanasa of Tulasi Dasa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Maity PK. 1966. Historical studies in the cult of the goddess Manasa: A Socio-cultural Study. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Mannikka E. 1996. Angkor Wat: Time, Space, and Kingship. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Maxwell TS. 2007. Of Gods, Kings, and Men: The Reliefs of Angkor Vat. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Michell G. 2002. Pattadakal: Monumental Legacy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Narayanan V. 1994. “The R┌m┌ya┬a in the Theology and Experience of the Śr⌡vai╓┬ava Community.” Journal of Vai╓┬ava Studies 2/4, 55-90. Raja Gonabuddha. 1961. Ranganatha Ramayana, translated into Hindi by Sri AC Kamakshi Rao. Patna: Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. Richman, P. 2001. Questioning Ramayanas: a South Asian tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rooney D. 2002. Angkor. Hong Kong: Odyssey. Roveda V. 1998. Khmer Mythology: Secrets of Angkor. New York/ Tokyo: Weatherhill. Shulman D. 1978. “The Cliché as Ritual and Instrument: Iconic Puns in Kampaṉ’s Ir┌mavat┌ram. ” Numen XXV: 135-155. Shulman D. 1979. “Divine Order and Divine Evil in the Tamil Tale of R┌ma, ” Journal of Asian Studies, 38/4: 651-669. Shulman D. 1987. “The Anthropology of the Avatar in Kampaṉ’s Ir┌mavat┌ram” In Gilgul: essays on transformation, revolution, and permanence in the history of religions, dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. R J Z Werblowsky, S Shaked, D D Shulman, G G Stroumsa, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 270 – 287. 26 Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk?
       

           !"# $ %&#''( )*+*, -. /0 '( 1 +*23442 '456 $ %&#'71&83 1  !. 2,<= &(. 9/1, *: ,*   ; >?',*@A =1?B4, I J8$ K%4FLM 1 @CDEF,G?,++H- /N 7O PQRS T UVST W  XV ,Y U Z[\. ?B4]G,*^??_`$ =@ a*F, b ^3c PQRS  K%dd'e G  j'
Rk[ K%dd'1l\T 1 ;'f 1 g\T hi  b m n oZ moQo pQT >?' PVSn &23 q%dd'1frT 4&]G+7%= Y 8s 7O UVS @. 4 I +*x3 ?y#,! #  c1,* /?81 3 Y t3 1 au 4#G&,v1 1Dw&H1 1 3 ?B4 ++41HI & 4Yz -. !,F," ?B4]G?y#+u,& 41HI J8$,*?{|}%+* " . I J8$@,Y  !@?~ 41 €&?B4 # "# $ %&#''( )*H- 71&&23&23E ?y#,! ?? ??7=''2=3 &  Da2,+* :%‚3ƒw&'%<=%&, Y ,„j3F,: 6v&,1&3 2 D. Abstract Who is the Strong-Armed Monkey who Churns the Ocean of Milk? Vasudha Narayanan Scholars have debated the identity of the monkey seen in the large bas-relief in Angkor Wat which depicts the story of the churning of the ocean of milk. The large monkey is seen helping the devas churn the ocean of milk for the nectar of immortality. Most scholars identify this monkey as Hanuman or, occasionally, as Sugriva. This paper, with a wealth of sources from multiple fields in South India (the modern states of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka), will discuss the identity of this mysterious monkey. These sources include passages from Kampaṉ’s Tamil R┌m┌yaṇa (the Ir┌m┌vat┌ram which was composed either in the ninth or twelfth century CE); a panel from the Virupaksha temple in Pattadakal, Karnataka (eighth century CE); the Rangan┌tha R┌m┌yaṇamu, a Telugu text dating to about the c. thirteenth century; and performing arts in Kerala. While it is certainly not the case that one needs to identify themes or characters in Khmer 27 Vasudha Narayanan art with Indian literature or world-views, in this particular case, there seem to be several sources which portray the churning monkey. All these sources from South India clearly identify the monkey in the churning scene as V┌li. The paper argues that V┌li’s appearance in the churning scene in South India as well as in Angkor strongly suggests that people in both places drew from common pools of narratives and lore; but what got valorized and when, depended on the socio-political conditions in local cultures. Résumé Qui est le singe fortement armé qui baratte l’océan de lait? Vasudha Narayanan L’identité du singe qu’on voit dans la scène du barattage de l’océan de lait figurant sur un grand panneau de bas-relief d’Angkor Vat fait l’objet d’un débat chez les chercheurs. Le grand singe est montré aidant les devas à remuer l’océan en vue d’obtenir le nectar d’immortalité. La plupart des chercheurs identifient ce singe avec Hanuman ou, parfois, avec Sugriva. Cet article, appuyé sur une variété de sources provenant de plusieurs régions du sud de l’Inde (aujourd’hui les États du Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh et Karnataka), tente d’examiner l’identité de ce singe mystérieux. Ces sources comprennent des passages du Tamil R┌m┌yaṇa de Kampaṉ (le Ir┌m┌vat┌ram, composé soit au 9è soit au 12è siècle), un panneau sculpté du temple Virupaksha dans Pattadakal, Karnataka (8è s. de notre ère), le Rangan┌tha R┌m┌yaṇamu, un texte Telugu datant des environs du 13è s., et les arts scéniques dans le Kerala. Certes l’identification des thèmes ou personnages de l’art khmer ne doit pas systématiquement se reférer aux normes indiennes, mais dans ce cas particulier, il semble qu’on doive considérer plusieurs sources qui, en Inde, dépeignent le singe en question. Toutes ces sources de l’Inde du sud identifient clairement le singe dans la scène du barattage comme V┌li. Toutes ces sources de l’Inde du Sud identifient clairement le singe dans la scène du barattage comme V┌li. Cet article montre que la présence de V┌li dans la scène du barattage en Inde du sud d’une part, celle d’Angkor Vat d’autre part, mettent fortement en relief la référence à un foyer de sources commun, mais les modalités des emprunts relevaient des conditions socio-politiques de chaque culture concernée. 28