Saketharaman on Dikshithar krithis

[sureshvv]

I find a certain "Adbudha" rasa in Dikshitar kritis - especially in the musical part of it. Was listening to a superb rendition of Sri nathadhi guruguho by young V. Subhasree yesterday at the Trinity festival that brought this out very well.

[rajeshnat]

Apart from anuragha bhakthi angle that Govindan sir brought up, by any chance since MD composed all except one or two in Sanskrit where as T composing in Telugu are we mistaking and drawing this strict contours of T vs MD where we assume T is more free flowing (colloquial and telugu)and MD is more erudite (basha being sanskrit).

[rajeshnat]

Ravisri and Bhakthi dehi
There is one krithi of MD in manipravalam (one of the Abhayamba krithi - i think it is in sahana), can either of you take the song lyrics of that and do your prasa analayis like what you did for the two krithis.

[vgovindan]

mInAkshi mE mudam dEhi is overflowing with karuNA rasa from anurAga bhakti. What I said about SAnta bhakti was applicable to majority of the kRtis of MD.

tyAgarAjA's kRtis - most of the inspired kRtis - are almost of colloquial as if in communion with his ishTa dEvata.
MD is more formal in the use of the language.

[bhakthim dehi]

There is one krithi of MD in manipravalam (one of the Abhayamba krithi - i think it is in sahana), can either of you take the song lyrics of that and do your prasa analayis like what you did for the two krithis.

To do a prasa analysis, we need to know the proper division of avarthanam. I have followed the notation by Sri Anantha Krishnayyer to do this.
I presume you are mentioning about the krithi "Sri abhayambaam" in sahana. But this is a full sanskrit composition.
According to this notation, pallavi has 3 avarthanam; abah, kthima and roopa. No prasa here even if we consider only abha and roopa were the 2 avarthanam.

Anupallavi has 9 avathanam. Respectively, they are vibha, nthri, nipu, viya, linyaa, nani, aBHE, vEdhi, sAyu. Bha being the dvitheeyakshara prasa is seen only in 1 and 7 avarrthanam. Muhana rules are not followed in between.

To me, This is very unlikely to be a Deekshithar krithi.

[RaviSri]

Again there is a prasa lapse. Ramachandrena and rama bharathi constuitute two different avarthanam. Though ma is there in both, rA in the first avarthanam cannot match ra in the second (refer to my previous post). Similarly kamakoti and kamaneeya constitute two different avarthanam. kA in kamakoti cannot match ka in kamaneeya.

mA is dvitIyAkShara prAsam. The prathamAkShara consonance should be between pallavi-anupallavi and the within the charaNams. It is not necessary that every line should start with a dIrghAkShara if the beginning is with dIrghAkShara. Take for example. bAlagOpAla. The second line starts with bhaktavatsala. There are many such examples both with Dikshitar and Thyagaraja. Also Shyama Sastri. Take the latter's mAyammA. The anupallavi starts with nyAyamA - dIrhgA. The second line starts as ninnuvinA - hrsva. This seems to be quite acceptable. So, there is no prAsa mistake made by Dikshitar.

As for "vemka". In Sanskrit it is vEmka which is a dIrghA but in South Indian languages it is vemka only. Therefore there is nothing wrong in the prAsa of the navagraha kriti. Take Dikshitar's maNipravALam song 'venkaTAchalapatE'. The anupallavi begins as "pankajAsana". panka is actually hrsva but it has been used not only by Dikshitar but by Thyagaraja also. See his song, "venkaTEshA ninnu". The anupallavi begins as "pankajAkSha". Take Subbaraya Sastri's venkaTashaila vihArA. Where again the anupallavi starts as pankaja. Actually venka, panka, etc., are samyuktAkSharas and are taken as being both hrsva as well as dIrghA. This is what I have heard from a Sanskrit scholar cum Sri Vidya upasaka. Again take as example, Thyagaraja's "inta soukhyamani nE and see the beginning word of the anupallavi.

Rajeshnat, the song you mentioned is "srI abhayAmbA" in maNipravALam. I personally feel it is authentic Dikshitar despite it being not perfect prAsA wise. Also bhaktim dehi's opinion on abhayAmbAyam in sahAnA as being a fake, I don't accept. The language used and the music I have heard of that song could have originated only within the soul of a mahApuruShA. The philosophy delineated in flowing Sanskrit cannot occur to an ordinary human being, that too to a person out to pass off his blabbering as that of Dikshitar's. Of course people can always say that this is my "subjective" opinion. Nevertheless, there it is - my opinion.

[bhakthim dehi]

I think you didn't get the rules properly. Prathamakshara must be in confirmation in character, be it pallavi to anupallavi or within the charanam, wherever dviteeyakshara prasa is used.

In this balagopala, LA, dviteeyakshara prasa is not used in second line. It means he had used ba of balagopala as a muhana to bha of bhakthavatsala. Rules of dviteeyakshara prasa cannot be equated with the rules of muhana.
Take the example sundaramurthim ashrayami. Nda is the prasa used. Second avarthanam begins with sura. Su is used as a muhana to Su, similar to balagopala and bhakthavatsala. When we go to the anupallavi, it is Kanda, kaama , manda and kunda. Nda is always preceded by a short consonant where ever it is used. I can cite several examples like this.

Regarding the krithi mayamma, there is no mistake in the prasa. Here, dviteeyakshara prasa is ya; mA is the first letter, dheergha. In anupallavi nyAyamA, ya is the dviteeyakshara prasa and nyA is the first letter, dheergha. No prasa error in this example!

Samyukthaksharas can be taken as hrsva or deerga.
you have any textual reference to this?

We can try to get as many explanations as we can. But, theoretically they are flaws. It is not going to demean the greatness of these composers by any way. As a researcher I am trying to scientifically evaluate these compositions. This is my only idea.
And it is better to accept as it is, rather than finding any explanations to make them straight.

Regarding the krithi abhayambaam, going by Sri Anantha Krishnayyer's notation, flaws are glaringly evident. Anyone who knows basic rules of prosody can find that. If there is any other version which divides the avarthanam in other ways, I can definitely re consider my opinion.

[bhakthim dehi]

As for "vemka". In Sanskrit it is vEmka which is a dIrghA but in South Indian languages it is vemka only.

It is not. In Kulasekara Azhwar pasuram, chediya valvinaigal, it is only nediyaane! VEnkatavaa.

Though, I am not sure, I feel vEnkatava in Tamizh itself is adopted only from Sanskrit.

Regarding the use of panka as a prasa for vEnka, either they must be aware of this mistake or they might have had some other reason/rule which we are unaware. But, with the present available evidence, panka is definitely not a prasa for vEnka.

[RaviSri]

I am no longer interested in this grammatical hair splitting. Personally, I was convinced of the infallibility of the Trinity long years ago, that too after years of study. If they have made a mistake (I mean the Trinity, none else in music), I say, let us utilise these mistakes in future taking therm to be correct. As the great Tamil poet Muruganar said of Ramana Maharshi when certain people pointed out mistakes in the Maharshi's Telugu and Malayalam verses, "We only know one vyAkaraNA. Bhagavan as a jnaani is a navavyAkaraNa paNDitA. Take what he has written and add it to the existing grammatical rules.' This is exactly what I say about the Trinity in Carnatic music. Also, there is no end to these arguments. Hence, I have decided that:

samprAptE sanihitE kAlE, nahi nahi rakShati dukhrn karaNE.

[kvchellappa]

Out of curiosity, is there no poetic licence for vaggeyakkaras? Or, is it 'netrikkannaik kaattinum kutram kutrame'?

[sureshvv]

Rules are meant to be broken. You just have to know when, where & by how much. These infractions only act to strengthen the rules.

[RaviSri]

is there no poetic licence for vaggeyakkaras

Why not. What is this?

ambujA ramaNa sOdari Adari ambari.....

But not for all and sundry. It is only for people who............ well, forget it.

[shankarank]

Adari : According to Sundaram Iyer's book, it is adiraThi ( she fights well from a chariot)!

Reminds of Subbudu's fun against SAtodari becoming sahOdari - that too in a dance recital

[srini_pichumani]

Bhaktim dehi,

I have a few points regarding the questions you have raised but little time/energy to participate rightaway...

Nevertheless, on the occasion of Rama Navami, I have uploaded Kalpagam mami's rendition of both mAnji kritis on archive.org for everyone's benefit... recorded July 1994 at her home in Indiranagar then.

https://archive.org/details/KalpagamMamiMAnjiJuly1994

It was also very moving and profitable to hear all the other renditions of Ramachandrena on Sangeethapriya. For giving that opportunity, many thanks !

Best regards,
-Srini.

[RaviSri]

atirati is Sundaram Iyer's imagination, to put it very mildly. He, and certain others cannot tolerate Dikshitar "making a mistake". It is such people, especially Sundaram Iyer, who with the active encouragement of Dr.V.Raghavan, published a number of spurious songs, claiming them to be Dikshitar's. All such spurious krits were manufactured at a factory in Kallidaikurichi and Sundaram Iyer's book is full of such rubbish. That atirati is ridiculous is borne out by just one fact. The antya prAsA: ambujA ramaNa sOdari Adari ambari kAdambari nIlAmbari. atirrati will be the odd word out. And SSP has Adari. Dikshitar has changed the Sanskrit word 'Adara' into a verbal plea 'Adari' making it sound Tamil. Nothing wrong in it if it has come from that great man's heart.

[shankarank]

Adara - I checked also means respectfully - so as a newly made noun - it could mean one who is respected! Diskhitar ( per TRS) is known to compose without verbs! So amidst all nouns - a verb from tamizh?. But RRI in his kriti maNi mAlai translates that as "kovai pazham pOnRa azhagiya adaram undaiyavaLE" referring to her lips? - wouldn't that be adharam?!

[bhakthim dehi]

I think there must be a reason for him to use a Tamizh word explicitly. We, mortals cannot get a reason for all the activities done by a Brahmagnani.
I have heard people pointing about velayudhakaram in the same context.

[shankarank]

vElayayudhakaram(dharam) from bAlasubrahanyam bhajEham (suruTTi) -
A Noun can be absorbed from other languages. Linguistically it is the verb that determines the language ( quoting what I read in a Markandey Katju article). So vEl does not change the language! But a verb?

[shankarank]

A possible solution ( not resolution) could be adhari - that became Adhari in lieu of ARSha prayOga - the archaic poetic license - like Siksha becoming SIksha and the aspiration was lost in transmission!