Uday sir provides impeccable evidence supporting OVK's pretrinity standing, through pointing out a series of very logical chronological progressions and eras of various musicians. I find it quite humorous that Shastry sir and Co as well as Anoop ji have conveniently ignored the points made by Uday sir. In debate this is known as selective arguing; we discount the points that make us unhappy (because they prove us wrong and we cannot offer a LOGICAL counter argument) or that we are ignorant about and vehemently hold onto one or two points (however illogical) till the bitter end...even after the discussion is overwelmingly done and people are ready to move on!"The post trinity period is very very close to ours and many people born in that period come tantalizingly close to our own generation. Patnam Subramania Iyer lived between 1845 and 1902 while Maha Vaidyanatha Sivan between 1844 and 1893.
This point is quite vague to me. WHY does OVK have to PERSONALLY meet Sri Govindakavi??? Why is itRegarding Polur Govindakavi's work, he gives a mathematical possibility of number nine along with many other values for sankirna. But as OVK was not known to any of the vaggeyakaras or musicians of that period, it is safe to assume that he has not come across the work of Polur Govindakavi (coz any acquaintance with any vidwan of that period would've easily made a person like OVK popular). Then how did he fix upon the value of sankirna as nine?
anything??? AND how do we know OVK was not known to other musicians in THAT time?? Secondly it may be easier to show that two people did meet at a certain point in time but Anoop ji stresses that Govindakavi did NOT meet OVK (which is harder to prove) and even better, does not offer much evidence for the statement other than a fleeting and illogical statement. It is obvious that Sri Govindakavi wrote a BOOK and not a thesis. Thus he was not inventing/researching the concept of sankeerna. Thus, if sankeerna is being published in a book it can be said that it must have been a widely known concept even in that time and that Sri Govindakavi need not meet OVK to personally let him know that something called Sankeerna existed.safe to assume
Regarding OVK's navavarnams, anyone who denounces such magnificent jewels as
are seriously wounding their own ethos. There are times when I have teared up just looking at the beautiful words and passages in these navavarnam masterpieces, let alone listening to them being rendered. Learning atleast ONE of these navavarna krithis will surely change your perspective. They are by no means ordinary. For example look at Sakalaloka Nayike in the ragam Arabhi OVK states in the madhyama kalam passage in the charanam, "Bhuvana Prasiddha HreemkAra KAmeswara Bheeja Mantra Lole" No ordinary/"just another" krithi would have such stunning passages....any one of his other krithis
I find it hilarious that from the beginning of the discussion to almost 150 posts later, the same points have been clutched onto in desperation; Bhaskaraya's lineage and sankeerna. I encourage people who hold onto these points to let go and reassess their reasoning and logic and not post for the sake of posting .