authenticity of dikshitar kritis
Subu Ramakrishnan
V. Srivatsava's book.
========================================
The sahitya found in the kritis "Mahasuram ketum" (Chamara) and
"Akhilandeswari" (Jujavanti) gives ground to believe that these kritis
are not genuine. The raga found in "Akilandeswari" is vastly different
from the raga found in "Chetasri"; "Akhilandeswari" sounds like
Jaijaivanti, the raga in "Chetasri" retains the traditional chayalaka
qualities. Unconnected and unclear references are found in
"Mahasuram".
========================================
Is "raga found in "akhilAndeshwari" vastly different from "chEtashrI"
enough
to believe that one of the two kritis is not genuine? Certainly that
does not convince me. Does anyone have comments on this claim? What
are the "unconnected and unclear references"? How can anyone make
unclear statements and doubt the authenticity of kritis? Anybody
home?..
Thanks
Subu
Todd Michel McComb
Subu Ramakrishnan <savv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The sahitya found in the kritis "Mahasuram ketum" (Chamara) and
>"Akhilandeswari" (Jujavanti) gives ground to believe that these
>kritis are not genuine.
It is widely suggested that "mahAsuram kEtumaham" and "smarAmyaham
sadA rAhum" are not by Dikshitar. Certainly these very crude kritis
do not seem like Dikshitar's work to me, especially next to those
for the other planets. I do not recall similar discussion for
"akhilANDEshvari rakSamAm," and have not considered it myself. That
"akhilANDEshvari rakSamAm" is closer to the Hindustani conception
has been seen as representative of Dikshitar's Hindustani study.
Note that it is the kriti with the raga mudra, not "cETah shrI
bAlakRSNam."
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Subu Ramakrishnan
Hi Todd,
I would like your input on "akhilANDEshwari" from a language point
of view. So far, the claim that it may not be dIkshitar's has not
been substantiated, and everything is poining to one source.
I would like to point out also that dIkshitar's kriti "jambupathE"
on jambukEshwara of tiruvAnaikkAval (main deity of the same temple
as goddess akhilANDEshvari) is also in a hindustani raga. Both song
have raga mudra (jujavanti and "yamuna" kalyani respectively).. Some
reason to believe that they may both be dIkshitar's.
Subu
Todd Michel McComb
Subu Ramakrishnan <savv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I would like your input on "akhilANDEshwari" from a language point
>of view.
It seems authentic to me, but that is far from a secure argument.
Perhaps someone has a better one to the contrary, but I found the
earlier stated logic to be questionable.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
says that he feels both Shri Satyanarayanam (Subhapantuvarali) and
Rangapuravihara (Brindavana saranga) are spurious songs.
Sanjay
"Todd Michel McComb" <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote in message
news:ae0ogl$t3b$1...@machaut.medieval.org...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 6/5/2002
Ravikiran
several second rate krtis have been added to those published in
Sampradaya Pradarshini in recent times. A look at the quality of
melody and lyrics seems to point to this.
I discussed it with Sri Semmangudi on a few occasions and he told me
that he saw some truth in what Brinda said but not all non Sampradaya
Pradarshini krtis were substandard/spurious. He gave a few examples.
Smt D K Pattammal, one of the most authentic Dikshitar specialists,
told me once that her guru, the Dikshitar expert, T L Venkataramaier
revealed to her that Akhilandeshwari and a few other krtis were not
genuine Dikshitar. I also asked her about Gananayakam
(Rudrapriya/Purnashadjam), Sri Ranganatham (Purnachandrika) and she
agreed with me that these were of dubious origins too.
Ravikiran
Rajan P. Parrikar
>
>Musicians differ on this topic. Smt T Brinda used to feel that
>several second rate krtis have been added to those published in
>Sampradaya Pradarshini in recent times. A look at the quality of
>melody and lyrics seems to point to this.
>
>I discussed it with Sri Semmangudi on a few occasions and he told me
>that he saw some truth in what Brinda said but not all non Sampradaya
>Pradarshini krtis were substandard/spurious. He gave a few examples.
On what basis were these dismissed as inauthentic?
For instance, a fair amount of music written by Mozart is
deemed by Western classical experts to be substandard, yet
its authorship is not called into doubt. Great composers
have been known to lapse occasionally into mediocrity.
Warm regards,
r
naniwadekar
"Rajan P. Parrikar" <parr...@spamyahooremove.com> wrote -
>
> On what basis were these dismissed as inauthentic?
> For instance, a fair amount of music written by Mozart is
> deemed by Western classical experts to be substandard, yet
> its authorship is not called into doubt. Great composers
> have been known to lapse occasionally into mediocrity.
>
of the occasion when Dnyaneshwar took samadhi, too. Namdev
is said to have described the occasion over dozens (maybe hundreds)
of small units in 6-6-6-4 format (which was not strictly adhered to
upto year 1700). I doubt whether this unit can be called abhanga or
shloka. I don't know what poetic passage is referred to as ovii .
The following may fall under that category.
Some Namdev passages are so beautiful :
daahii dishaa dhu.nd udayaastaaviiN
taise jan-man hindoLale
...........
...........
naamaa mhaNe aataa lopalaa dinakar (7 letters here)
baap dnyaaneshwar samaadhisth(a) .
Other passages don't measure up to this severe standard. A few of
of obvious possibilities considered are : 1. The inartistic passages are
prakshhipta (added decades/centuries later to the original). 2. Namdev could
not maintain the high standard throughout. Purely as an anarchist, one
may even consider the possibility that some SUBLIME passages might also
have got added much later.
- dn
naniwadekar
>
> Some Namdev passages are so beautiful :
> daahii dishaa dhu.nd udayaastaaviiN
> taise jan-man hindoLale
I am not sure whether that is the correct word.
Maybe it is not 'hindoLale' but 'dhundaavale' or
'naadaavale'. Does anybody know for sure?
- dn
Todd Michel McComb
Rajan P. Parrikar <parr...@spamyahooremove.com> wrote:
>Great composers have been known to lapse occasionally into mediocrity.
Elements of their style are usually recognizable, however. Dikshitar's
body of work has a rather consistent form to it which cannot be so
easily articulated, even if it can be grasped by the mind. When a
song seems unlike the others, it is natural to question. Usually
this means a lapse of quality -- or is at least expressed as a lapse
of quality -- but it needn't.
For instance, to supplement your remarks on Mozart, much music in
Europe in the 1500s was attributed to Josquin Desprez (the most
famous composer of his generation, dying in 1521), as a way to
increase sales, or simply because a copyist may have thought that
anything which seemed authoritative must be by Josquin. In the
past decades, many pieces have been demonstrated as spurious by
other analyses (finding other sources, analyzing paper, etc.), and
it usually starts with the sentiment that the music does not sound
much like the composer's style.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
UVR
> In article <ae7s2...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Rajan P. Parrikar <parr...@spamyahooremove.com> wrote:
> >Great composers have been known to lapse occasionally into mediocrity.
>
> Elements of their style are usually recognizable, however. Dikshitar's
> body of work has a rather consistent form to it which cannot be so
> easily articulated, even if it can be grasped by the mind. When a
> song seems unlike the others, it is natural to question. Usually
> this means a lapse of quality -- or is at least expressed as a lapse
> of quality -- but it needn't.
Point taken. However, if it is possible for the mind to grasp
that there is "some-impalpable-thing-not-quite-kosher" about a
specific Dikshitar composition, does it not follow that the
same doubting mind ought to be able to specify the place in the
composition WHERE said "un-kosher-ness" exists (to coin a word)?
Even, that is, if it is not possible to clearly articulate WHAT
exactly it is that makes it un-kosher.
For example, if one is suggesting that "akhilANDEshvari" or
"shrI satyanArAyaNaM" are spurious compositions misattributed to
Dikshitar, then one must be willing to support one's suggestions
by stating where [one thinks] the compositions fall short of the
Master's work. Just saying "I think these are not the genuine
article" may not be good enough for other scholarly minds. Other-
wise, there exist good theoretical arguments which assert that
Dikshitar must have composed even such obviously sub-par kritis
as 'mahAsuraM kEtumahaM' or 'smarAmyahaM sadA rAhuM'
Note that I'm not saying stalwarts of the caliber of DKP are
wrong to voice their doubts and misgivings about the authenticity
ticity of these compositions to brilliant musicians like Ravi-
kiran. I'm just saying that the "something is wrong" argument
probably won't fly too far.
-UVR.
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
musicologist and musician who is no more, says that the basis is the
employment of the language. He compares it with a few other songs abd says
that the language in the said songs contain errors as well as
characteristics that are not found in the otherwise authentic songs.
Sanjay
"Rajan P. Parrikar" <parr...@spamyahooremove.com> wrote in message
news:ae7s2...@drn.newsguy.com...
Todd Michel McComb
UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote:
>However, if it is possible for the mind to grasp that there is
>"some-impalpable-thing-not-quite-kosher" about a specific Dikshitar
>composition, does it not follow that the same doubting mind ought
>to be able to specify the place in the composition WHERE said
>"un-kosher-ness" exists (to coin a word)?
Ideally, yes. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that the
musical genius does not necessarily have the ability to translate
those thoughts into words. Should they strive harder to do so?
Maybe; it might distract from their other efforts. I certainly try
to work on it, but to say it is necessarily so? No.
You are right, though, if there is no argument at all, then there
is nothing to consider. Something specific must be said, or no
conclusion will be made.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Rajan P. Parrikar
>
>In the case of the songs I was referring to, PK Rajagopala Iyer, a
>musicologist and musician who is no more, says that the basis is the
>employment of the language. He compares it with a few other songs abd says
>that the language in the said songs contain errors as well as
>characteristics that are not found in the otherwise authentic songs.
This is a tricky business. As an aside, I recall reading a
review of S. Chandrasekhar's final published work, an exegesis
of Newton's Principia, where the reviewer (J. Narlikar) points
out a couple of elementary booboos, completely out of character
with Chandra's otherwise meticulous and impeccable oeuvre.
Warm regards,
r
UVR
>
> In the case of the songs I was referring to, PK Rajagopala Iyer, a
> musicologist and musician who is no more, says that the basis is the
> employment of the language. He compares it with a few other songs abd says
> that the language in the said songs contain errors as well as
> characteristics that are not found in the otherwise authentic songs.
I am extremely interesting in finding out if shrI iyer has
also stated which parts of the composition contain "errors"
in language, and what they are? I presume the allusion is
to grammatical or idiomatic errors.
If indeed there are grammatical errors in this composition, the
matter ought to become really easy to resolve -- it should be
a fairly straightforward task to point out those alleged errors
in the lyric. For grammar, unlike music, does not need one to
"feel that something is wrong". Instead, it follows clearly
stated and well-documented rules, any and all transgressions
of which, ought to be very easy to spot.
"Idioms", on the other hand, were never that important, AFAIK,
in Sanskrit. However, if indeed it is idiomatic errors that
are the source of the doubt, the offending phrases should also
be easy to pin-point.
I mean, one can't say "something is wrong with this sentence".
One must be able to say "this phrase is idiomatically (or
grammatically) incorrect, and the error is [...]."
Could someone please provide examples of where the composition
falls short of Dikshitar's body of work in linguistic terms?
Regards,
-UVR.
V. N. Muthukumar
"Rajan P. Parrikar" wrote:
>
>
>
> This is a tricky business.
Indeed it is. If we consider Papanasam Sivan's kritis, for example, some
of his older kritis are quite poetic and many of his latter day
compositions involve lyrics that are nothing to write home about.
Another example, this from the world of poetry - Tamizh TAthA U. VE.
Saa. recounts an incident when Vidwan Tyagaraja Chettiar swears "this
cannot be Ayya's (Meenakshisundaram Pillai) poem. It is much too simple"
and MP himself had to step in and say "is there a rule that says I
cannot compose simple verse?"
In the case of Dikshitar, there was a discussion on rmic long ago. Not
unsurprisingly, the discussion featured "gaNanAyakam", "smarAmyaham",
"mahAsuram" etc (B. M. Sundaram attributes the latter two to disciples
of Dikshitar). Part of the rmic thread can be found in
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/5409/fraud2.html
In the case of Tyagaraja, the parentage of some of the "dubious" kritis
has been clarified. See
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/5409/fraud.html
muthu
Nur der BvB!
Todd Michel McComb
V. N. Muthukumar <mu...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>If we consider Papanasam Sivan's kritis, for example, some of his
>older kritis are quite poetic and many of his latter day compositions
>involve lyrics that are nothing to write home about.
Yes, while the linguistic aspect may seem more concrete to some
people, I am not so sure about that. Well, for one thing, my command
of Sanskrit is not good enough to analyze Dikshitar's music on this
basis. But more than that, it is his music I really feel that I
know. After all, it is the musical aspect which attracted me, etc.
Anyway, this is just a very general comment on methodology. The
rAhu and ketu compositions do not sound like Dikshitar's work to
me. Some of the others mentioned do. I would be more than happy
to read some of these specific linguistic arguments, though.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Ravikiran
interpretations are made (at least in my case).
My doubts about Gananayakam started when I heard a DKJ version of it
in Poornashadjam, which was quite crisp and attractive.
1. The tune was *exactly* the same as the first half of a Tyagaraja
krti in Poornashadjam, 'Sri manini manohara'.
2. This krti was mentioned as 'Rudrapriya' in most books.
3. This krti started after 1.5 units of a tala (like Marugelara,
Chalamelara, Chinnanadena) etc, a style that Dikshitar is never
otherwise known to have employed.
4. I was personally unhappy with the choice of a phrase - vadane
dwiradam - in the charanam. Dwiradam means elephant - the 2 tusked
one. But Ganesha is renowned as Ekadanta (one with a single tusk).
This, I felt was out of character with someone who was as classy and
correct as Dikshitar in choice of words.
5. The krti has neither any madhyamakalams nor raga mudra (though
there are other examples of the latter kind).
With all these in mind, when I enquired with Smt DKP, she reaffirmed
it with her guru's opinion. (Btw, I play this piece quite often as the
tune makes it a good opening number.)
I can come up with similar points in some of the other krtis I have
heard but as Todd said, sometimes, one may develop a gut feeling too,
after seeing a few concrete cases like the above.
Regards,
Ravikiran
-------------------------------
Ramaprasad K V
> My doubts about Gananayakam started when I heard a DKJ version of it
> in Poornashadjam, which was quite crisp and attractive.
>
> 1. The tune was *exactly* the same as the first half of a Tyagaraja
> krti in Poornashadjam, 'Sri manini manohara'.
>
Ravikiran,
But aren't some other kriti's also having the same pattern ?
(akshayalinga vibho)
>
> I can come up with similar points in some of the other krtis I have
> heard but as Todd said, sometimes, one may develop a gut feeling too,
> after seeing a few concrete cases like the above.
Whenever you find some time could you please elaborate on
some such kritis with reasons why they could be spurious ?
Regards
Ramaprasad K V
Ramaprasad K V
I'm very interested to know what you think about the kriti's in
abhogi and devagAndhAri. These ragas aren't mentioned in the
anubandha of mudduvenkatamakhi.
Regards,
Ramaprasad
UVR
>
> I can come up with similar points in some of the other krtis I have
> heard but as Todd said, sometimes, one may develop a gut feeling too,
> after seeing a few concrete cases like the above.
Yes, please (thank you very much for posting the detailed
logic w.r.t 'gaNanAyakam', and) would it be possible for
you to describe the reasoning behind questioning the auth-
enticity of "grand" compositions like 'akhilANDEshwari'
(dwijAvanti) or 'shrI satyanArAyaNaM' (shubhapantuvarALi).
Certainly these do not display any obvious signs such as
those exhibited by 'gaNanAyakam' for one to call their
authorship into question.
Pardon me if I seem stuck on these kR^itis, but I'm specific-
ally interested in them because they are frequently upheld
as examples of Dikshitar's expertise with 'Hindustani' rAgas.
Also, as shrI Todd has mentioned elsewhere in this thread,
the treatment of the rAga in 'akhilANDEshwari' in particular,
sounds close to the Hindustani version (versus the decidedly
Carnatic interpretation of it in 'chetaH shrI').
Thanks
UVR.
V. N. Muthukumar
Ravikiran wrote:
>
> Let me give an illustration of what kind of factors go in when such
> interpretations are made (at least in my case).
>
> My doubts about Gananayakam started when I heard a DKJ version of it
> in Poornashadjam, ...
>
> 1. The tune was *exactly* the same as the first half of a Tyagaraja
> krti in Poornashadjam, 'Sri manini manohara'.
>
> 2. This krti was mentioned as 'Rudrapriya' in most books.
These points are well taken. As I mentioned in my earlier posting, the
same doubt is raised in the url which I cited.
>
> 4. I was personally unhappy with the choice of a phrase - vadane
> dwiradam - in the charanam. Dwiradam means elephant - the 2 tusked
> one. But Ganesha is renowned as Ekadanta (one with a single tusk).
> This, I felt was out of character with someone who was as classy and
> correct as Dikshitar in choice of words.
This is an interesting question. It seems to me there are at least two
possible interpretations: (i) Going by purANA, we may assume there was a
day when Ganesa's tusk was not broken (one version is that he broke it
to write down the Mahabharata). This may sound lame, but there is at
least one reference that I can quote off the cuff - a Tiruppugazh where
Arunagiri refers to the "day when Ganesa broke his tusk". (ii) The word
"dvirada" is often interpreted as "elephant faced", e.g. in the
invocatory verse of the Vishnu sahasranAmA, "yasya dvirada ..". However,
it seems to me, that students of Vaishnaiva as well as Vaishnavites,
claim that the reference here is not to the son of Siva, but to
Vishvasena, the leader of Vishnu's gaNAs (Senai mudaliar?) .(If I am
wrong, I request those who know this material better than I do, to
rectify my error.) Be that as it may, it is clear that the word in
question is often used to mean "elephant faced".
Notwithstanding the above, I agree that this particular kriti does not
smell of Dikshitar, if only for musical reasons mentioned by you and
others.
muthu
Nur der BvB!
naniwadekar
V. N. Muthukumar <sumitra.r...@verizon.net> wrote -
>
> This is an interesting question. It seems to me there are at least two
> possible interpretations: (i) Going by purANA, we may assume there was a
> day when Ganesa's tusk was not broken (one version is that he broke it
> to write down the Mahabharata).
>
An aside. No music discussion here. You are warned.
I had composed most of what appears below a day or two ago, but
held back wanting to do some more 'research' (restricted to
google search). I wasn't even sure whether I wanted to post this.
Needless to say, the URLs I am quoting are just
what they are : URLs with material compiled by possibly
excitable enthusiasts. I wouldn't trust them with 'knowing
their material well' as Muthu has put it. I did my google
searches mostly as a frivolous exercise. (So you are now STRongly
warned.) This is what I had written :
I don't know why I did it but I tried a google search for "two
tusk ganesh" (immediately after reading Ravikiran's post). It
could be because of some overheard conversations about the
amazing varieties of Ganapati around Pune. His disciples
associate many good, bad and even kinky adjectives with Him for
various historical reasons. One variant, "hattii gaNapatii',
has stuck in my mind and is probably the primary reason why I
searched for 'two tusk ganesh'. "hattii (haathii)" = elephant.
(Almost) Every Ganapati has elephant-head, though I won't rule
out some variations on that score, too. Wherefore 'Hatti
Ganapati' then? Ah, you must walk past it. This Ganapati has an
elephant for his vaahan (vehicle). The accepted, ISO and
SEI-CMM certified vaahan is muushhak (mouse). If you are
acquainted with Pune, I don't need to tell you 'Hatti
Ganapati' is located near Dnyan-prabodhini, founded by the
Nationalist visionary, Appasaheb Pendse. The vehicle's trunk is
the conventional black and raised in air; God's trunk is its
usual fair colour. It is quite a sight.
dhumra-varNa : This name talks about Ganesh being smoky-
coloured. I believe rakta-varNa (blood/red-colour) is another
of His names. Apparently, the story about Parvati scraping
sandalwood off her body, arranging it into a human form and
breathing life into it to bring about Ganesh is a watered-down
version for the edification of the Indian Censor Board of the
story that he was conceived off menstrual waste and retained
the colour of blood; hence the name 'rakta-varNa'.
Quite a few Indians don't know two curious differences between
North Indian and South Indian mythology. In North India (at the
very least in Maharashtra), Kartikeya is considered the elder
brother. And women are forbidden from visiting his temple
thanks to a curse uttered by Parvati for some un-chivalrous act
of his. That being the case, it is hardly surprising women are
forbidden even from entering his bedroom. And THAT being the
case, it is not surprising that he is a bachelor. During my
school days, while visiting South India, I was surprised to
hear that Ganesha is considered the elder brother by South
Indians. He is the bachelor. And our tour guide requested women
not to visit his temple. Ganesh temples are thronged by both
men and women come krishna-paksha (sankashhti) chaturthi in
Marathi speaking areas. So far I have not come across any
Kartikeya temple in Mahrashtra, though I hear some do exist.
Ganesha temples are more numerous than casinos in Las Vegas.
ek_dant : though the text specifically mentions that the left
tusk is broken, you will see some images in the following URLs
with a broken right-tusk. With profuse apologies to the latest,
modern, compassionate, Mother's Day, Father's Day celebrating
human avatar, here is a quote : "The two tusks denote the two
aspects of the human personality, wisdom and emotion. The right
tusk represents wisdom and the left tusk represents emotion.
The broken left tusk conveys the idea that one must conquer
emotions with wisdom." It may of course be argued that these
special Days are not just about emotion, but also wisdom.
Just what wisdom, we hope some URL will explain to us some day.
For more on two-tusk Ganesh reduced to being ek-dant, check :
http://www.sorceryn.com/ganesh.htm
www.ikashmir.org/Gods/God8.html
http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1415/gan.html
===================================================
UVR
>
> Quite a few Indians don't know two curious differences between
> North Indian and South Indian mythology. In North India (at the
> very least in Maharashtra), Kartikeya is considered the elder
> brother. And women are forbidden from visiting his temple
> thanks to a curse uttered by Parvati for some un-chivalrous act
> case, it is not surprising that he is a bachelor. During my
> school days, while visiting South India, I was surprised to
> hear that Ganesha is considered the elder brother by South
> Indians. He is the bachelor. And our tour guide requested women
> not to visit his temple.
>
innumerable mythological anecdotes about how neither Ganesha
nor Karttikeya are bachelors. EACH of them is described as
having not one but TWO wives. Ganesha's consorts are Siddhi
and Buddhi. Karttikeya is referred to as the husband of
Valli and Devasena (note that while Ganapati is the leader
of Shiva's hordes -- gaNa-s -- Subrahmanya's 'position' is
as the senApati of the dEva-s).
[To make this post musically relevant,] Here are two Carnatic
compositions that provide 'documentary evidence' of the
marital status of the two brothers: Papanasam Sivan refers
to Shanmukha as "shrI vallI dEvasEnApate! shrI subrahmaNya!
namO.stu tE!" in his stupendous compositions in naTabhairavi
rAgam-Adi tALam. And Muthaiya Bhagavatar tells us that he
propitiates Ganesha as "'siddhi'-vinaayakaM sEvEham ...
buddhidEvi_varaM bhOgi-ka~NkaNa-karam" in mohanakalyANi, Adi
(there are other, probably better, examples, but this is one
of my personal favorites).
BTW, I'd advise against trying to figure out how *KUMARA* can
have [2] consorts. Take Sivan's word for it. NOBODY can
know Murugan more than a Tamilian can.
-UVR.
P.S. BTW, what happened to the Ganesh-Kumaresh violin duo?
Are they still active? I haven't heard of them touring the
USA/Canada in the recent past.
naniwadekar
UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote -
> >
> It may come as a shock to you that in South India there are
> innumerable mythological anecdotes about how neither Ganesha
> nor Karttikeya are bachelors. EACH of them is described as
> having not one but TWO wives. Ganesha's consorts are Siddhi
> and Buddhi.
>
Bhimsen, the words 'R.ddhi Siddhi daasi' occur unless I am
mistaken. The abhag mentions Bhiimaa river's bank. I don't
remember whether the abhang addresses Vitthal or Ganesh.
I guess it just uses the generic word God. The context might
mean Ganesh; but I am sure there are many verses in praise
of God AA which relate how every other God pales before
God AA. The tenth shloka of shiv-mahimna-stotra declares
that even Brahma and Vishnu cannot take measure of Shiva's
greatness. And in 'naamaachaa gajar' possibly Ganesh and his
gang are made to bow to Vitthal. As is usual with me I am
unable to recall exact words of this Namdev bhajan.
How widespread is this practice of women not visiting
Ganesh temple in South India? Many a Madrasi amma
is seen visiting Ganesh temple in Maharashtra.
And while we are at it, I was extremely surprised to actively
realise one fine day what I had been parroting for decades : In
the Ganesh-stotra, the one which begins 'praNamya shirasaa
devaM', the ninth out of twelve names mentioned is Bhalchandra.
(Check the URLs I had quoted earlier for the entire text of
that stotra.) He shares this name with his surrogate father,
Shankar. I daresay the word Bhalchandra conjures to an Indian
mind the image of Shiva only. (For the benefit of non-Indian
forum readers, bhaal = forehead.) Shiva sporting a phase of
moon is a common sight. His hair-cut keeps changing from
Dilip-style in 1950s, and Amitabh in 1970s to Shahrukh Khan
these days. I must look hard for Ganapati imitating his dad and
sporting the moon-phase when Father's Day comes around next.
Does the moon-phase sported by Shiva correspond to
shukla-pakshha dwitiya?
- dn
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
to The Hindu and it appeared on the issue dated 15th September 1978.
It was in response to an article by The Hindu's music critic Shri NM
Narayanan that mentioned the appearance of a few spurious compositions
of Dikshitar.
Shri Rajagopala Iyer says " The sahitya of Rangapuravihara cannot be
Dikshitar's. The purvardha and uttarardha of the pallavi as well as
the anupallavi has no yati. Still sadder, the entire sahitya of the
charana, except the madhyamakala sahitya, has neither yati nor
dvitiyakshara prasa. The madhyamakala sahitya has no bearing on the
previous padas of the sahitya of the charana.
The coincidence of the dvitiyakshara prasa betweeen the pallavi and
the anupallavi as well as betweeen the padas of the charana, coupled
with the yati between their purvardhas adn uttarardhas, is a
distinctive essential and compulsory feature in the lakshana of the
sahitya of the kriti, as evolved down the last two centuries and more.
And Muthuswami Dikshitar, in particular, has meticulously adhered to
and incorporated these indispensible features in all his compositions.
For example his "Shri naathaadi", his very first kriti, is replete
with all the above lakshanas.
Another defective composition is "Shri Satyanarayanam" wherein the
sahitya of the pallavi has neither yati nor prasa in its purva and
uttarardhas. Nor has the madhyamakala sahitya at the end of the
pallavi any bearing on the pallavi at all. Even within that
madhyamakala sahitya, the purvardha and the uttarardha suffer from a
sad inequality. The uttarardha of the charana sahitya has no bearing
on the purvardha. The concluding madhyamakala sahitya at the end of
the charana has no bearing on the previous padas of the charana. And
within itself the madhyamakala sahitya has no yati or prasa. Can any
of these discrepancies be pointed out in "shri rajagopala", or
"Kamalambam bhajare" or "Vatapiganapatim"?
Further, in point of the sense content of the sahityas of his kritis,
the pallavi, anupallavi and charana always bear inter relationship of
the "sutra-vritti and bhashya." For instance, the kritis "shri
varalakshmi namastubhyam" and "shri subrahmanyaaya namaste" eloquently
bear out the above beautiful characteristics; whereas the anupallavi
and charana of the kriti"Rangapuravihara" do not substantiate the
theme of the pallavi. On the contrary the sahitya of the anupallavi
and charana only digress without any elaboration of Shri Ranganatha
and/or Sriranga kshetra."
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
> dwiradam - in the charanam. Dwiradam means elephant - the 2 tusked
> one. But Ganesha is renowned as Ekadanta (one with a single tusk).
> This, I felt was out of character with someone who was as classy and
> correct as Dikshitar in choice of words.
This is a clarification issued by my sister Mrs S.Visalakshi who is
doing her PhD in sanskrit at Adyar Library. " The word vadanedviradam
is definitely an epithet of Ganesha. It does not indicate tusks.
'rada' means a hole and 'dvirada' indicates the two holes that are
present at the tip of an elephant's trunk. And vadanedviradam means
'one who has two holes in his face'. This is a perfect example of
'aluk samasa'. 'vadane dviradau yasya' is the vigraha vakya.
For those uninitiated in the study of grammar, aluk samasa can be
peripherally explained as the compound word where the individual words
which combine do not lose their nominal suffixes. This usage clearly
exhibits Dikshitar's characteristic mastery over the language and its
nuances."
Thanks
Sanjay Subrahmanyan.
UVR
I could be misremembering my Sanskrit lessons from my school
days many moons ago, but I think the kind of samaasa being
referred to (in the vigraha vaakya) is called 'bahuvriihi
samaasa'.
'aluk' is a kind of samaasa where the component words do not
appear in their undeclined (nominative) form. I remember
that the textbook example of 'aluk' wass "bR^ihaspatiH" -- a
compound of 'bR^ih' (prayer) and 'patiH' (lord). The vigraha
vaakya is "bR^ihas patiH". brR^ihas is the ShaSThi vibhakti
(dative case, "of X") of bR^ih, and without 'aluk', one would
adopt the undeclined form of "bR^ih" and the samaasa would be
'bR^ihpatiH'.
-UVR.
sv...@removethiscupdothp.com
show signs of a lot of care and perhaps reworking, and perhaps he
never got around to polishing some of them up to his usual
standard. Or perhaps he left it to a disciple to polish. Certainly
"Sri Satyanarayanam" and "Akhilandeswari" have elements of Dikshitar's
style, and are of a high musical quality.
For example, Shakespeare's "Timon of Athens" is considered incomplete,
and "Pericles" is considered to be part of a collaboration.
Vish Subramanian
S. Visalakshi
> days many moons ago, but I think the kind of samaasa being
> referred to (in the vigraha vaakya) is called 'bahuvriihi
> samaasa'.
You definitely are!! although the word 'yasya' in the vigraha vaakya
seems to indicate that it is bahuvrihi, the fact that vadane has not
lost its nominal suffix shows that it is 'aluk samasa'.
> 'aluk' is a kind of samaasa where the component words do not
> appear in their undeclined (nominative) form. I remember
> that the textbook example of 'aluk' wass "bR^ihaspatiH" -- a
> compound of 'bR^ih' (prayer) and 'patiH' (lord). The vigraha
> vaakya is "bR^ihas patiH". brR^ihas is the ShaSThi vibhakti
> (dative case, "of X") of bR^ih, and without 'aluk', one would
> adopt the undeclined form of "bR^ih" and the samaasa would be
> 'bR^ihpatiH'.
As far as I know 'bR^ih' is a verb meaning 'to expand'. In the case of
'bR^ihaspati' the vigraha vaakya as given by Sankara in his commentary
on bR^ihadAraNyaka is, 'bR^ihatyaH patiH'. I am not sure about the
exact rules involved in the formation of the above compound word,
though I am sure that it is tatpurusha and not aluk.
Visalakshi.
Padma Ravikumar
Rangaramanuja Ayangar's krithi maNi mAlai Part III with dIkshithar krithis
lists two versions of this song.
The first one lists the rAgam's ArOhaNam-avarOHaNam as
sgrmpns -snpmrgs and the notation does not sound anything like the popular
MS version of the song at all.
the "navInam" version listed second maps closer to the popular version and
what I learnt also maps closer to this
Any ideas on when and by whom the more popular version was tuned and how the
older version was "lost" ?
CV
"Sanjay Subrahmanyan" <sanj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8898b95.02061...@posting.google.com...
RMIC-Member
'rada' mean hole. Uniformly, only 'tooth' and 'tusk' have been given.
Secondly, it is curious to interpret the word 'vadana' as referring to
the elephant's trunk. The trunk is often called 'hasta' (hand), and
the elephant itself is called 'hastin'. Obviously, Dikshitar was quite
aware of these meanings and usages as is seen from the opening line of
his composition 'HastivadanAya' (hasti - elephant, and vadana - face)
in Navaroj.
As an aside, the elephant's trunk is actually an elongated nose and
the 2 holes at the end are the 2 nostrils. Nothing mentionworthy about
having 2 nostrils, is there? A large number of animals have it.
Moreover the Sanskrit word for nostril is 'nAsa-chidra', 'chidra'
obviously referring to a hole. If your sister can cite one dictionary
where 'rada' means hole, we can consider this more seriously.
Coming to the kriti 'Gananayakam', there was an old discussion about
its authenticity in Music Academy (50s or 60s), along with the
controversy of whether it is in Rudrapriya or Purnashadjam. At the end
of this, Dr. T V Subba Rao, the renowned musicologist said that
neither this kriti nor these ragas deserve such an extended discussion
and dismissed the entire topic out of hand. I think we should do the
same! It is evident that Gananayakam does not bear the stamp of
Dikshitar either lyrically or musically and it is curious that of all
things, you seem to be championing its cause. Or is there more than
meets the eye?
sanj...@hotmail.com (Sanjay Subrahmanyan) wrote in message news:<c8898b95.02061...@posting.google.com>...
RMIC-Member
tusk as being held in the hand.
Eg. 1. Panchamatanga (Malahari) - 'kapAla danta modaka rudrAkShamAlA
kareNa'
2. Srimahaganapatiravatumam (Gowla) - 'kuvalaya svaviShANa pAshAnkusha
modaka prakAsha karO'
sanj...@hotmail.com (Sanjay Subrahmanyan) wrote in message news:<c8898b95.02061...@posting.google.com>...
L Ramakrishnan
> Is "raga found in "akhilAndeshwari" vastly different
> from "chEtashrI" enough to believe that one of the
> two kritis is not genuine?
Hey Subu, I do not think they are different, though
the popular concert renditions of akhilANDEshwarI
appear to have more Hindustani-ish flourishes. These
flourishes could have just tacked on by the artistes,
just as saundararAjam in bRndAvana sAranga appears
different between TN Seshagopalan's interpretation and
that of the DKJ/DKP school, the former being more
Hindustanified.
Anyway, I tried to compare the notation for
akhilANDEshwarI given by Kallidaikurichi A. Sundaram
Iyer (in Dikshita Kirtana Mala, henceforth DKM) with
the notation for chEtashrI given by Subburama
Dikshitar in Sangita Samparadaya Pradarshini,
henceforth SSP (which incidentally, is the version I
learned from Smt. Kalpagam Swaminathan.)
Since DKM kriti versions are based on manuscripts by
Ambi Dikshitar (Subburama Dikshitar's son) one would
expect close similarities. Sure enough, the prayOgas
for akhilANDEshwari in DKM are similar to those for
chEtashrI in SSP, esp. in the yadukula kAmbhOji-like
phrasings, the way sAdharaNa gAndhAra is used in
rmg*rs, the lack of any suggestion of N3, a Hindustani
staple which occurs as anuswaras in popular renditions
of akhilANDEshwari, etc.
LR
UVR
> > I could be misremembering my Sanskrit lessons from my school
> > days many moons ago, but I think the kind of samaasa being
> > referred to (in the vigraha vaakya) is called 'bahuvriihi
> > samaasa'.
>
> You definitely are!! although the word 'yasya' in the vigraha vaakya
> seems to indicate that it is bahuvrihi, the fact that vadane has not
> lost its nominal suffix shows that it is 'aluk samasa'.
Yes, you're right! "vadanedviradaM" would indeed be a product of
'aluk samaasa'. Sorry for the error and thanks for the correction!
> > 'aluk' is a kind of samaasa where the component words do not
> > appear in their undeclined (nominative) form. I remember
> > that the textbook example of 'aluk' wass "bR^ihaspatiH" -- a
> > compound of 'bR^ih' (prayer) and 'patiH' (lord). The vigraha
> > vaakya is "bR^ihas patiH". brR^ihas is the ShaSThi vibhakti
> > (dative case, "of X") of bR^ih, and without 'aluk', one would
> > adopt the undeclined form of "bR^ih" and the samaasa would be
> > 'bR^ihpatiH'.
>
> As far as I know 'bR^ih' is a verb meaning 'to expand'. In the case of
> 'bR^ihaspati' the vigraha vaakya as given by Sankara in his commentary
> on bR^ihadAraNyaka is, 'bR^ihatyaH patiH'. I am not sure about the
> exact rules involved in the formation of the above compound word,
> though I am sure that it is tatpurusha and not aluk.
I see. Well, it *is* possible that both my Sanskrit guru and the
Monier-Williams' dictionary are incorrect on this point, but from
the entry for "bR^ih" in the online version of the said dictionary,
(see http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html)
that this word does mean 'prayer' and is, infact, related to
"bR^ihaspatiH" in exactly this sense.
Regards,
-UVR.
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
> 'rada' mean hole. Uniformly, only 'tooth' and 'tusk' have been given.
> where 'rada' means hole, we can consider this more seriously.
This is the url of the dictionary searched on the net
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html
if u search for "dvirada" u will find the following entry
"Entry dvirada
Meaning mfn. 2-tusked L. ; m. an elephant MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; %{-pati}
m. a large eñelephant BhP. ; %{-karA7gra} n. the tip of an
eñelephant's trunk MW. ; %{-rata} m. a partic. Sama1dhi Ka1ran2d2. ;
%{-dA7ntaka} m. `" destroyer of the eñelephant "' , lion L. ;
%{-dA7rAti} m. foe of the eñelephant , faced N. of the fabulous animal
S3arabha L. ; %{-dA7zana} n. `" food of the eñelephant "' , Ficus
Religiosa ; %{-dA7sya} m. eñelephant faced. ; N. of Gan2e7s3a Ba1lar."
I think my sister went by the expression "the tip of an elephant's
trunk". This probably refers to the holes or nostrils as u have said,
and she also justifies it with some funda called "aluk samaasa". You
have also not touched on that aspect so I suppose you think it
irrelevant in the current discussion.
It is evident that Gananayakam does not bear the stamp of
> Dikshitar either lyrically or musically
1. I have no knowledge of Sanskrit to pass a judgement on the lyrical
content of compositions.
2. As for the musicality, it does change over the yers and we never
know how it was intended.
3. gaNanAyakam does appear in the sampradAya pradarshiNi in the
anubandham.
and it is curious that of all
> things, you seem to be championing its cause. Or is there more than
> meets the eye?
I am disappointed that my post makes you feel this way.
Sanjay Subrahmanyan
RMIC-Member
>
> Meaning mfn. 2-tusked L. ; m. an elephant MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; %{-pati}
> m. a large eñelephant BhP. ; %{-karA7gra} n. the tip of an
> eñelephant's trunk MW. ; %{-rata} m. a partic. Sama1dhi Ka1ran2d2. ;
> %{-dA7ntaka} m. `" destroyer of the eñelephant "' , lion L. ;
> %{-dA7rAti} m. foe of the eñelephant , faced N. of the fabulous animal
> S3arabha L. ; %{-dA7zana} n. `" food of the eñelephant "' , Ficus
> Religiosa ; %{-dA7sya} m. eñelephant faced. ; N. of Gan2e7s3a Ba1lar."
>
> I think my sister went by the expression "the tip of an elephant's
> trunk". This probably refers to the holes or nostrils as u have said,
Sanjay, you must take a look at the "%{-karA7gra}" that comes before
the meaning "the tip of the elephant's trunk". dvirada is (generally
speaking) elephant, meaning two-tusked. The "kara" or hand (remember
hasta?) is the trunk. The "agra" of this kara is the tip of the trunk.
The "tip of the elephant's trunk" is therefore "dvirada-karAgra".
To mistake the word "dvirada" itself to mean the tip of the trunk, and
then to extrapolate backwards from this error to claim that "rada"
means "hole" is quite wrong, to say the least. I suppose we can wait
for your sister herself to clarify what she meant, as you disclaim all
knowledge of Sanskrit on your part.
Finally, on the basis of the generic usage of dvirada to mean
elephant, to say that Ganesha is dvirada, is also unwarranted. It is
not something one would expect out of a composer of the calibre of
Muthuswami Dikshitar.
> and she also justifies it with some funda called "aluk samaasa". You
> have also not touched on that aspect so I suppose you think it
> irrelevant in the current discussion.
"vadane dviradam" is indeed an aluk samaasa, but why presume that this
usage was unique to Dikshitar? Besides, off the top of my head, I
can't think of aluk samaasa usages in any authentic Dikshitar kriti.
> 2. As for the musicality, it does change over the yers and we never
> know how it was intended.
>
> 3. gaNanAyakam does appear in the sampradAya pradarshiNi in the
> anubandham.
If you have seen this song in the anubandham, surely you have also
seen the notation that is given there? It corresponds quite well to
what is widely sung today. The argument that it might have changed
over the years does not hold water.
I remember being struck by the close resemblance with Sri manini
manohara, when I heard that song long ago. (I haven't heard Sri manini
since.) Is it like Dikshitar to compose in 1 1/2 eduppu? And is it
like Dikshitar's style not to include madhyama-kala sahitya in a
composition?
As for the ending phrase, "vara baala guruguham", what does that mean?
It sounds a bit too contrived, in order to incorporate the guruguha
mudraa in the song. Sundaram Iyer gives an imaginative meaning for it
in Tamil, which is very unconvincing.
In the very same anubandham, you might have also seen the very next
composition, marked as Rudrapriya, in which the note da figures
prominently, although this Rudrapriya still looks quite different from
what we call Rudrapriya today. So, now we have two different
Rudrapriyas, attributed to Dikshitar, one without a da and another
with a da. Very curious, is it not?
The anubandham has compositions by a number of other composers.
Considering all the evidence stacked against its authenticity, it is
quite possible that Gananayakam has been mistakenly attributed to
Muthuswami Dikshitar. It could very well be a printing mistake.
I am curious to know what Subbarama Dikshitar's original Telugu
edition says in this regard.
RMIC-Member
>
> Meaning mfn. 2-tusked L. ; m. an elephant MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; %{-pati}
> m. a large eñelephant BhP. ; %{-karA7gra} n. the tip of an
> eñelephant's trunk MW. ; %{-rata} m. a partic. Sama1dhi Ka1ran2d2. ;
> %{-dA7ntaka} m. `" destroyer of the eñelephant "' , lion L. ;
> %{-dA7rAti} m. foe of the eñelephant , faced N. of the fabulous animal
> S3arabha L. ; %{-dA7zana} n. `" food of the eñelephant "' , Ficus
> Religiosa ; %{-dA7sya} m. eñelephant faced. ; N. of Gan2e7s3a Ba1lar."
>
> I think my sister went by the expression "the tip of an elephant's
> trunk". This probably refers to the holes or nostrils as u have said,
Sanjay, you must take a look at the "%{-karA7gra}" that comes before
the meaning "the tip of the elephant's trunk". dvirada is (generally
speaking) elephant, meaning two-tusked. The "kara" or hand (remember
hasta?) is the trunk. The "agra" of this kara is the tip of the trunk.
The "tip of the elephant's trunk" is therefore "dvirada-karAgra".
To mistake the word "dvirada" itself to mean the tip of the trunk, and
then to extrapolate backwards from this error to claim that "rada"
means "hole" is quite wrong, to say the least. I suppose we can wait
for your sister herself to clarify what she meant, as you disclaim all
knowledge of Sanskrit on your part.
Finally, on the basis of the generic usage of dvirada to mean
elephant, to say that Ganesha is dvirada, is also unwarranted. It is
not something one would expect out of a composer of the calibre of
Muthuswami Dikshitar.
> and she also justifies it with some funda called "aluk samaasa". You
> have also not touched on that aspect so I suppose you think it
> irrelevant in the current discussion.
"vadane dviradam" is indeed an aluk samaasa, but why presume that this
usage was unique to Dikshitar? Besides, off the top of my head, I
can't think of aluk samaasa usages in any authentic Dikshitar kriti.
> 2. As for the musicality, it does change over the yers and we never
> know how it was intended.
>
> 3. gaNanAyakam does appear in the sampradAya pradarshiNi in the
> anubandham.
If you have seen this song in the anubandham, surely you have also
vidya Jayaraman
not be mere observations..
What is interesting is that 99% of the kritis in the sampradaya
pradarshini fits these with the exception of the following partial
fits : daNDAyudhapANim, shrI kamalAmbikAyAH,budham AShrayAm and an
exclusive non-fit pUrNacandra (ragamAlika).However the converse is not
true as shrI lakshmi varAham too passes this test!
However I do not understand the application the sutra-vritti-bhAshya
approach to a stuti-like kriti.It is more suitable to a themebased
kriti like that of Tyagaraja.
Again does yati here denote caesura or a rythmic pattern ?
The only explanation to this is that these kritis might be the result
of teaching/composing interactive sessions with the shishyas.The
stories about the chittaswaras for Ramaswami Dikshitars shriranjani
piece also indicates the Dikshitar brother's penchant for these
joint-ventures.
Ravikiran
this is only a further pointer to its dubiousness. As to 'dviradam',
I have discussed it with a few other scholars and was not altogether
convinced that MD would have used something like that. Taken in
conjunction with all the other points I mentioned, Gananayakam still
presents a very dubious picture as an authentic MD krti.
A few more similar usages that I have been unable to grasp...
1. "Harihara putra jananeem" - Marakata valleem - Kambhodhi (Who is
the mother of Aiyappa?
2. "Garvita Daksha shiksham" - Hariharaputram - Vasanta (What is
Aiyappa-Daksha relationship?)
There could be some other explanations for these and if so, I'd
welcome them. So far, the few scholars I ran this past have been
baffled too.
Ravikiran
Sridhar Seshagiri
> 1. "Harihara putra jananeem" - Marakata valleem - Kambhodhi (Who is
> the mother of Aiyappa?
Please see http://www.ambaa.org/essays/harihara.htm
It talks of the total identity betweem ambaal and viShNu and
describes marakatavalli as the mohini form of vishNu and the
consort of shiva. I don't know how clearly your specific doubt
is addressed though.
Regards,
Sridhar.
Mani Varadarajan
> "dvirada" is often interpreted as "elephant faced", e.g. in the
> invocatory verse of the Vishnu sahasranAmA, "yasya dvirada ..". However,
> it seems to me, that students of Vaishnaiva as well as Vaishnavites,
> claim that the reference here is not to the son of Siva, but to
> Vishvasena, the leader of Vishnu's gaNAs (Senai mudaliar?) .(If I am
> wrong, I request those who know this material better than I do, to
> rectify my error.) Be that as it may, it is clear that the word in
> question is often used to mean "elephant faced".
The reference to an elephant-faced person is correct, but
it is not Vishvaksena. It is a person in Vishvaksena's entourage
who serves Vishnu in Vaikuntha. These people are known in
Vaishnava terminology as nitya-sUris, a la 'tad vishnoh paramam
padam sadA paSyanti sUrayaH'.
The sloka itself is in honor of Vishvaksena, who has this
elephant-faced being in his entourage. Note: this elephant
faced being is distinguished from Siva's son Ganapati by
having two tusks, according to Vaishnava scholars.
Mani
Ravikiran
Harahrdayaveshineem resolves the issue.
Another inconclusive discussion I have had with scholars is about
compositions without any verbs. A few of them contend that quality
composers do not normally compose such compositions. A very few were
emphatic that MD would never compose such pieces.
But we do have a few superb pieces such as Amba Neelayatakshi in
Neelambari which do not have any verb. There is a controversial word
'katakshi' which has left scholars divided as to its language. Were
one to take it as Tamil, it is a verb. But if one were to take a
Sanskrit meaning to it, it is no longer so. Same goes for Annapoorne
Vishalakshi in Sama.
It may be interesting to examine this in detail.
Ravikiran
----------------------------------------
Sridhar Seshagiri <sesh...@egr.msu.edu> wrote in message news:<3D134CCE...@egr.msu.edu>...
N.Ramanathan
The exchanges on spurious songs of Muttusvami Dikshitar made very
absorbing reading. It was thrilling to see `the (what seemed )
unassailable arguments being torn to pieces. Wonder if any of you read
an article "Problems in Editing the Krti-s of Muttusvami Dikshitar"
that appeared in the 1998 issue of The Journal of The Music Academy,
Madras that appears to address the issue from a larger perspective.
Perhaps those who have access to it may take a look and perhaps rip it
apart so that the exchanges could proceed in a wider field.
nramanathan
Mani Varadarajan <mani@ramanuja*antispam*.org> wrote in message news:<87r8j09...@srirangam.ramanuja.org>...
UVR
>
> Another inconclusive discussion I have had with scholars is about
> compositions without any verbs. A few of them contend that quality
> composers do not normally compose such compositions. A very few were
> emphatic that MD would never compose such pieces.
>
> But we do have a few superb pieces such as Amba Neelayatakshi in
> Neelambari which do not have any verb. There is a controversial word
> 'katakshi' which has left scholars divided as to its language. Were
> one to take it as Tamil, it is a verb. But if one were to take a
> Sanskrit meaning to it, it is no longer so. Same goes for Annapoorne
> Vishalakshi in Sama.
I am not a scholar (but when has that stopped me? :)) For
what it is worth, I do not think 'kaTaakShi' in either of
these compositions is the Tamil verb. IMHO, it is the
sambodhana kaaraka (vocative case) of the corresponding
Sanskrit noun.
Indeed, 'amba nIlAyatAkShi' and 'annapoorNe' aren't the only
two Dikshitar compositions that are 'missing' a verb. There
are others, though perhaps not very many. Some examples:
- himagirikumAri (ravikriyA-Adi)
- puraharanandana (hamIrkalyANi-Adi),
- kaumAri gaurIvElAvaLi (gaurIvElAvaLi-Adi)
- paranjyOtiShmati pArvati" (jyOti-Adi)
- sarasa-shauvIra (shauvIram-Adi)
- kAmAkShi (bilahari-Adi)
(though, in the last mentioned, one might say that the pallavi
is actually
kAmAkshi varalakShmi kamalAkShi jaya! lakShmi shrI
instead of "kamalAkShi jayalakShmi")
Actually, I do not think that a verb needs to be explicitly
present in a vocative composition of this type. It is quite
acceptable for it to be left unstated, implicit. A case in
point are all those aShTottara-shatanAma-s and sahasranAma-s
that are devoid of any verbs and which are recited all the
time in our temples and households.
Indeed, I think that in his extreme wisdom, Dikshitar has
given us, by means of these compositions, a perfect example
of the difference between "dhyaana / smaraNa" (=meditation)
versus "bhajana" (=prayer or propitiation). Isn't dhyaana/
smaraNa characterized by repeated recitation of the Lord's
name(s)? Isn't the legendary 'first Sanskrit poet', Valmiki,
said to have started off his life as a Rama-bhakta by
incessantly chanting "rAma-rAma-rAma ..."? Not 'rAma mAmava'
or 'rAma pAhi' or 'rAma mudam dEhi' but just simply "rAma!
rAma rAma!" [Now, if these questions seem to indicate that
the so-called "dhyAna kR^iti" in the kamalAmbA navAvarNa
sequence is really a "bhajana kR^iti", then so be it! :)]
Besides, don't you think that using the Tamil 'kaTATchi' in
'amba nIlAyatAkShi' and 'annapuurNe' would be tantamount to
employing a "cheap trick" for someone of the caliber and
scholarship of Dikshitar? There really doesn't appear to be
a reason he should choose to resort to such a trick. After
all, if he wanted to include a verb in the composition, he
could easily have done so by employing any of the multi-
tudinous verbs he has used in other compositions: pAhi, Ehi,
ava, etc. 'avAva', for example, is of the same exact metric
length as 'kaTAkShi'. Why didn't he use it here? The only
reasonable answer to this is "because he didn't intend to."
But all this is just my opinion, and what do *I* know?
-UVR
> It may be interesting to examine this is detail.
>
> Ravikiran.
vidya Jayaraman
Aiyappa-Daksha relationship?)
Why should daksha be taken as a proper noun here? It could easily mean
the one who cleverly /expertly/adroitly punishes.
This usage is seen even aksaya linga vibho.
Vidya
N.Ramanathan
word `Adari' that occurs in the madhyamakAla-sAhitya portion of the
anupallavi -- "ambujAramaNasOdari Adari ambari kAdambari nIlAmbari".
That A Sundaram Ayyar in Sri Dikshita Kirtana Mala (Pt.12) has chosen
to change the word `Adari' to `atirathi' is another issue.
It could be accepted that the text of a songs which is in vocative
case could afford to do without a verb. But `vEGkaTAcalanilayam' of
Purandara Dasa is in accusative case and yet drops a verb. Once Mrs.
Sowmya (the artist) suggested that the original text must have been in
vocative (vEGkaTacalanilaya vaikuNThapuravAsa) and then undergone
change and seemed convincing. ???!!!
UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3D14AD86...@usa.not>...
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
>
> It talks of the total identity betweem ambaal and viShNu and
> describes marakatavalli as the mohini form of vishNu and the
> consort of shiva.
I have a few comments about the reasoning used in the above webpage.
1. It does make sense that the anupallavi of marakatavallIm begins
with harahRdaya.
2. However, it is not correct to justify the usage of "hara" by saying
that dvitIyAkshara-prAsa on "marakata" requires "hara..." and that it
cannot be satisfied by "hari..." . The dvitIyAkshara rule only
requires that the consonant in the second place be the same across
related lines. There is no rigid rule that says that the same vowel
should also be involved. A few examples from other Dikshitar
compositions will suffice to illustrate this -
a. shakti sahita gaNapatiM ... vi-
rakta sakala ...
bhaktAdi ...
bhukti-mukti-pradam ...
rakta-padAmbujam ...
Note that the second syllable has both -kti and -kta in the above
lines.
b. vara-guruguha sodareNa
surucira lambodareNa (madhyamakAla sAhitya in pancamAtanga -
malahari)
Note the occurrence of -ra and -ru in the second syllable.
c. sharIra-traya-vilakShaNa ...
virinchi-hari-...
parAdi-vAgdevatA ...
carAtmaka ... (charaNam of Sahana Avarana kriti).
Note -rI, -ri and -rA in the second place.
3. All the above is not to say that harihRdaya in the anupallavi of
the kriti marakatavallIm would make sense.
Best regards,
Vidyasankar
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> the one who cleverly /expertly/adroitly punishes.
>
> This usage is seen even aksaya linga vibho.
In akShayalinga vibho, the full phrase is dakSha-shikShaNa-dakShatara.
Here the first dakSha is the proper noun, and the second dakSha, in
dakShatara, modifies the noun shikShaNa. So it means, "he who is
adroit/expert in punishing dakSha."
In the phrase garvita dakSha shikSham, if we were to take dakSha as
only modifying the noun shikSha, and not as a proper noun, then the
word garvita is left without a referent, and we have to wonder who is
being punished.
Unless of course, one interprets the entire phrase to mean, "one who
cleverly/expertly punishes him/those who is/are proud."
However, such an interpretation would be better suited to the samAsa,
garvita-shikSha-dakSham, rather than to garvita dakSha shikSham. The
internal word order does make a difference.
Also, in another kriti attributed to Dikshitar, Vinayaka in
Vegavahini, the term dakSha-shikShaka is used in the anupallavi. It is
hard not to take dakSha in this phrase as a proper noun, and it is
hard not to wonder why Ganesha is called dakSha-shikShaka, and
consequently it is hard not to question the genuineness of attributing
this composition to Dikshitar.
Vidyasankar
S. Visalakshi
meaning of dvirada. Sorry for the error....
> Finally, on the basis of the generic usage of dvirada to mean
> elephant, to say that Ganesha is dvirada, is also unwarranted. It is
> not something one would expect out of a composer of the calibre of
> Muthuswami Dikshitar.
Ganesha sahasranamam in Ganesha puranam has the epithet dvirada for
Ganesha. The verse no is 133 and it is the 833rd nama. Bhaskararaya in
his commentary Khadyota says "dviradaH prakaTArthakaH" or it is too
obvious for him to comment on. SVRadhakrishna Sastri's tamil
translation gives the explanation that Ganesha was two-tusked before
writing Mahabharata/before killing Gajaasura.
> As for the ending phrase, "vara baala guruguham", what does that mean?
> It sounds a bit too contrived, in order to incorporate the guruguha
> mudraa in the song. Sundaram Iyer gives an imaginative meaning for it
> in Tamil, which is very unconvincing.
Could you please give a gist of the meaning given by Sundaram Iyer?
Visalakshi.
N.Ramanathan
It is true that the prAsa rule requires that the dvitIyAkshara-s
should be the same consonants irrespective of the vowels attached to
them. But just to supplement a bit(since this requirement has not been
transgressed in the example "marakatavallIm" discussed here), the rule
also requires that the first letters (the letters preceding the
divitIyAkshara-s) should be of the same time duration (hrasva or
dIrgha). This rule is stated in "muhanaprAsAntyaprAsavyavasthA"
attributed to svAti tirunAL
pa- marakata ----
a.pa- harihrdaya ----
The first letters `ma' and `ha' are both hrasva. So it is fine.
However in a krti like "rAmacandrENa samrakshitO'ham" in mAJji rAga
the rule is transgressed
pa - rAmacandrENa samrakshitO'ham - sItA
a.pa ramAbharatI gaurI
The letter preceding the prAsa letter in pallavi, that is, `rA' is
dIrgha while the letter preceding the prAsa letter in anupallavi, that
is, `ra' is hrasva. This is a technical fault. We also notice that the
duration of the prAsa letters `ma' and `mA' differ which however is
not a fault.
In another krti "kusumAkaravimAnArUDhAm' in Ahiri, though not found
in SSP of subbarAma dIkshitar, we have another instance of this
technical fault.
pa- kusumAkaravimAnArUDhAm
a.pa bhAsamAnakAmESvarAnandAm
`ku' and `bhA' differ in the duration of their vowels.
One example where both rules have been transgressed is "mamahrdaya"
of Maisuru Vasudevacarya, in rItigauLa
pa - mama hrdayE vihara dayALO
a,pa mandhadhAma suvirAjita SrI krshNa
There is no agreement in the prAsa letters - `ma' and `ndha'
There is no agreement in the preceding letters - `ma' being hrasva
and `ma' in `mandha' being dIrgha. It is quite likely that
Vasudevacarya intentionally did it since he chose to observe the rule
in all the other compositions.
With regard to
vara-guruguha sodareNa
surucira lambodareNa (madhyamakAla sAhitya in pancamAtanga -
malahari) --
This passage is part of the madhyamakAla-sAhitya in the caraNa. The
prAsa for `va-ra-guruguha' lies in `ka-ru-NArdra gauratarENa' and not
in `su-ru-ciralambOdarENa'. Professor Sambamurti and Professor
S.R.Janakiraman hold that prAsa should occur between two `pAda-s',
although I have never clearly understood what constitutes a `pAda'.
`suruciralambOdarENa lies within the same pAda as `varaguruguha'. If
we take `su-ru-cira' as the prAsa for `va-ra-guruguha' then for
`ka-ru-NArdra' the prAsa would have to be `ka-li-malaharaNacaturENa' ,
which does not seem to be alright.
regards,
nramanathan
svidya...@hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) wrote in message news:<915f6899.02062...@posting.google.com>...
Subu Ramakrishnan
LR
===================================================
The above response from L Ramakrishnan of Austin does
not seem to be in the thread. This thread is taking
all kinds of directions, with a lot of information/
learning, etc. Please keep it going..
Ramki, yes different schools seem to have different
interpretations. In fact, this can be observed in
several other kritis. "mamava pattabhi rama" is
done very differently by MSS and DKP.
One important thing to note is that jujAvanti and brindAvana
sArangA are hindustani ragas. Given that, why should dIkshitar
carnaticize it with yadukula kAmbhoji prayogams in jujAvanti
(or use a foreign nishadam between the two nishadas and ga in
brindAvana sArangA)? Did these happen because dIkshitar thought
these are cool add ons? Did it happen because the interpretters/
notation writers had incomplete knowledge/ or is it because the
performers today are overdoing some cool extensions which makes
it sound very different from what dIkshitar intended in the
first place? Does anyone have concrete explanations for these?
Thanks,
Subu
====================================================
Janardhan Iyengar
I have a GNB recording, an AIR release. The CD has Swaminatha Paripalaya
(Nattai), Kalala Nerchina (Deepakam), Marukelara (Jayantasri) and
Brochevarevarura (Khamas). The original recording was done on
18/10/1960.
I'm unable to figure out who the violinist is - I'm not sure whether it is
Chowdiah or V Sethuramaiah. Anybody know?
regards,
jana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Janardhan R. Iyengar iye...@cis.udel.edu
University of Delaware http://www.cis.udel.edu/~iyengar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Michel McComb
Janardhan Iyengar <iye...@ren.eecis.udel.edu> wrote:
>I have a GNB recording, an AIR release. The CD has Swaminatha
>Paripalaya (Nattai), Kalala Nerchina (Deepakam), Marukelara
>(Jayantasri) and Brochevarevarura (Khamas). The original recording
>was done on 18/10/1960. I'm unable to figure out who the violinist
>is - I'm not sure whether it is Chowdiah or V Sethuramaiah. Anybody
>know?
This was issued on CD in 1994. The accompanists listed there:
T.S. Balasubrahmaniam (vocal support), Mysore T. Chowdiah (violin),
Pazhani M. Subraminia Pillai (mridangam), Umaiyalpuram N. Kothandarama
Iyer (ghatam)
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
V.Chandrasekaran
>
> 1. "Harihara putra jananeem" - Marakata valleem - Kambhodhi (Who is
> the mother of Aiyappa?
>
> 2. "Garvita Daksha shiksham" - Hariharaputram - Vasanta (What is
> Aiyappa-Daksha relationship?)
>
> There could be some other explanations for these and if so, I'd
> welcome them. So far, the few scholars I ran this past have been
> baffled too.
>
> Ravikiran
Dhikshitar is known for advaitin ideas in his krithis. Dhikshitar may
have seen the feminine aspect of Hari-Hara combination as nothing but
manifestation of Devi and hence could have visualized Aiyappa as son
of Devi. But, this is my own interpretation.
In the "Garvita Daksha shiksham", it means one who punished the
arrogant Daksha. In Aiyappa's story there is a reference to a Daksha
who offends Aiyappa in the forest when the latter ventures in for
tiger milk for his foster mother's illness.
There is another Dhikshitar instance of this sort of not-so-clear
reference... In the krithi "kAdambarIpriyAyai" in mohanam, in the
anupallavi there is this phrase "madhukaiTabha bhaHnjanAyai". By this
it means Devi killed Madhu and KaiTabha asuras. But the purana has it
that Lord Vishnu was the destroyer of these two asuras as it goes in
"Suprabhatham verses" too.
Regards,
-chandra.
RMIC-Member
> Ganesha. The verse no is 133 and it is the 833rd nama. Bhaskararaya in
> his commentary Khadyota says "dviradaH prakaTArthakaH" or it is too
> obvious for him to comment on. SVRadhakrishna Sastri's tamil
> translation gives the explanation that Ganesha was two-tusked before
> writing Mahabharata/before killing Gajaasura.
That is interesting.
> > As for the ending phrase, "vara baala guruguham", what does that mean?
> > It sounds a bit too contrived, in order to incorporate the guruguha
> > mudraa in the song. Sundaram Iyer gives an imaginative meaning for it
> > in Tamil, which is very unconvincing.
>
> Could you please give a gist of the meaning given by Sundaram Iyer?
For the line 'vara bAla guruguham', this is what Sundaram Iyer says
(I'm sorry I have to revert to Tamil here to give the exact meaning):
Presumably for the word 'vara' - ellAraiyum viDa shirandavar
'bAla guruguham' - kumAra paruvam uLLa subramaNyaruDan viLangubavar
Where does the word 'uDan' or 'with' come from? There doesn't seem to
be any equivalent Sanskrit words for it in the sahitya like 'sahita'
or 'samEta'. 'guruguham' applies directly to the pallavi
'gaNanAyakam'.
Also the word 'vara' has been interpreted as 'varam', as though it
were separate from 'bAla guruguham'.
This is why it seems to me that 'guruguha' is a contrived construction.
V.Chandrasekaran
In the krithi "kAdambarIpriyAyai" in mohanam, in the anupallavi there
is this phrase "madhukaiTabha bhaHnjanAyai". Devi killed Madhu and
KaiTabha asuras? The purana has it that Lord Vishnu was the destroyer
of these two asuras as it goes in "Suprabhatham verses" too. Hence
Vishnu is called Madhusudhanan.
Same Dhikshitar sings "madhu mura ripu sOdhari" in "miinaakshi mey
mudham".
How is this to be reconciled?
Regards,
-chandra.
Sridhar Seshagiri
> > Ganesha sahasranamam in Ganesha puranam has the epithet dvirada for
> > Ganesha. The verse no is 133 and it is the 833rd nama. Bhaskararaya in
I don't know why dvirada was ever suspect. I thought Shri Adi Shankara's
Saundaryalahari has a reference to Lord Ganesha as dvirada
(kumArAvadyApi
dviradavadana krau~nchadalanau ?) I don't know sanskrit, but I thought
(and maybe read somewhere) that this was a reference to Lord Ganesha and
Lord Subrahmanya (krau~nchadalana) ?
Sridhar.