University of Virginia Library

MYTH AND RITE

Myth can, of course, exist apart from rite; conversely, many rites performed
have no associated myths. But in this case myth and rite are so clearly
linked that a challenge to interpret their relationship is posed for us.

We have seen that the myth of Nang Phrakosob contains certain category
oppositions and their attempted mediations. Three aspects of the way
in which rice came to man are stated. Rice was divine food, it was found
by man in its spontaneous wild state. Rice was given to man by animals,
which represents its passage from nature to culture, from wild state to
domestication; we note here that animals are seen to co-operate with
man, to act benevolently on his behalf. Finally another mode of its coming

into the possession of man is stated—man maintains rice permanently
through the art of magical control taught him by a ruler over men.

The sacred words of the rite itself, however, do not simply say the same
things as the myth, nor is the myth a simple charter for the rite. I posed
the question above why rice-growers should prosaically have their technology
described in the rite. The answer is that the villagers are saying
in the rite that rice-growing is a man-made activity which is characterized
by hard work and meticulous attention. The harvest is a culmination of
this activity, and there is a point in the listeners reliving and recounting
the effort they put into cultivation.

Related to this is the insistence that rice which was taken away by
predatory birds and animals must be retrieved from them. This, then, is
the second inversion of the myth. In the myth the fish, animal, and bird
co-operated to persuade rice to leave its natural wild state and become the
food of man. Here in the ritual, the animal world and the human world
are represented as being antagonistic as well as separated. Man must
keep the animal world at bay if he is to retain the fruits of his labour.
The rite is essentially concerned with maximizing and perpetuating the
stock of rice gathered after harvest.

While these are not necessarily the only links between this myth and
this rite, what has been indicated does confirm the proposition made
previously that the relation between myth and associated rite in the
Thai village is not a simple parallelism or isomorphism, but an inversion
or a statement of the two sides of a paradox which in combination portray
the complexity of man's ideas about and solutions to central problems.
In this instance the preoccupation is the origin of rice, the meaning of rice
cultivation as a human activity, and how to handle and treat this precious
substance which sustains life and which is a vehicle for expressing man's
relation to other men, to nature, and to divine beings.

The myth and the rite express two opposed propositions, which together
compose a complex totality of ideas and values. The myth says that rice
was given to man in a manner which shows his dependence on gods,
animals (nature), and his rulers; in the rite man affirms that rice-growing
is a human activity which requires effort and care and that rice must be
protected against the predations of nature—animals and birds. At the
same time, the spirit of rice, reflecting Buddhist moral and ethical values,
is fragile and elusive and must be persuaded to stay with man.