WTB Arunachala Kavi's Book

Books on Carnatic Music and those for / by / on musicians.
ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Post by ksrimech »

Yes definitely. I'm only re-iterating your words. I'm not trying to say anything new. If she hadn't sent Him to the forest He wouldn't have been able to fulfill the promise he made to jayA and vijayA, the dvArapAlakAs at tirunAdu.

Sundara Rajan
Posts: 1081
Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 08:19

Post by Sundara Rajan »

I am sure most of us know this version : Dasaratha who was on a hunting expedition aimed an arrow directed at what he thought was the sound of an elephant drinking water in the river, whereas it really was the son of an old brahmin filling his POT with water for his parents, and thus killed the boy. When Dasaratha approached the old folks and sought their forgiveness, the old man cursed that the king also would die of PUTHRASOKA just they were dying as a result of their son's death. KaikEyi knew this and DID NOT WISH for Daratha to die as a result of rAmA's DEATH, but was willing to accept his death as a result of his SEPARATION from rAmA and that was why she asked for such a boon and saved rAmA's life , yet fulfilling the brahmin's curse.
bAsa's PrathimAnataka had a different take about Bharatha's ire at KaikEyi. He did not know of his father's death until he saw Dasaratha's statue in the hall of dead kings and then is informed of the whole story. Then he tellss KaikEyi that she was unfit even to stand between his other two mothers and compares her to a gutter between Ganga & Yamuna. " mama mAthus cha mAthus cha madyasthA thvam na sObasE, gangA yamunyOr madyE kundIva prevEsithA" ! KaikEyi's intension ,though, was good ineed.

Sundara Rajan
Posts: 1081
Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 08:19

Post by Sundara Rajan »

Please ignore the typos and spelling mistakes. I am not good at typing !

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

Interesting! Thanks...

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Well there is a variety of versions of the sequence of events leading to rAma's departure to the forest. Acoording to Kripananda Variyar (who writes a commentary based on kambarAmAyaNam) dasharathan divulges the hunting episode to kOsalai only after rAma's departure when kOsalai comes to kaikEyi's palace where dasharathan is passing out frequently and speaking incoherently when conscious. Is the hunting episode narrated to kaikEyi long before she asks for the two boons to be fulfilled? More than that did kaikEyi ask for two boons while she saved dasharathan by recovering his sunk chariot knowing it would be useful to save rAma in the future?

Sundara Rajan
Posts: 1081
Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 08:19

Post by Sundara Rajan »

If I remember correct, according to bAsa , kaikEyi was aware of the curse and was willing to put to good(?!) use the two boons promised earlier by dasaratha and while she meant only 14 DAYS, by divine intevention uttered 14 YEARS instead and also used baratha's name to justify her demand for rAmA's exile, knowing that baratha would not accept the crown and that he would persuade rAmA to return to the thrown after 14 days.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Who knows what kaikEyi meant --14 days instead of the "tip of the slongue" (you know what I mean)? Is that mentioned in vAlmIki rAmAyaNam? Kamban does not seem to indicate it, although I have to go through the entire chapter there. The definite verse is " Ezh iraNDu ANDin vA enRu iyambinan arasan enRAL" {she said "come back after 2 x7 (=14) years--so said the king"}.

Is the "slip" an interpretation by some exponents who do vyAkyAnam?

ramakriya
Posts: 1876
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 02:05

Post by ramakriya »

mahakavi wrote:Is the "slip" an interpretation by some exponents who do vyAkyAnam?
The slip, in pratimA is not an interpretation of a vyAkhyAnakAra. cmlover had already posted the exact sentence she says there. So it is Bhasa's.

p.s: Some researchers say that there isn't enough evidence to say pratimAnATaka is indeed bhAsa's.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Time for a puzzle :)
Here is a lovely shlOka

utpulla indIvarAkShI shsshadharavadanA bibratI shubrakAntim
gatvA asau rAjadhAnIM dasharathaM avadat kaikEyI kOpayuktA |
rAjA rAmabhiShEkAt viramatu sahasA niShkala^NkE kulE asmin
bhU putrI yasya patnI sa bhavati kathaM bhU patI rAmacandraH ||


Don't worry if you don't know sanskrit. The punch line is the last one :)
The first three lines simply state that the lovely messenger from kaikeyi who was angry says that the blemishless family should not be compromised and hence dasharatha should forthwith stop the coronation since......(why?)

Give it a shot :)
(ramakriya/DRS ! you be the last :)

kalgada78
Posts: 210
Joined: 19 Jun 2005, 22:01

Post by kalgada78 »

Cml Sir,
i don't know anything about Sanskrit.But it looks like the messenger says that if Rama becomes the King,then he becomes "BhU Pati" which is not allowed because he has married the BhU Putri(Sita)!!...
Am i miles away?

Sarma.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Right
Is it not being married to both the mother and daughter at the same time? Sita becomes his daughter by becoming the 'bhU pati' :)
(By the by was it permitted in any culture? Sub can tell us whether the animals have any intrinsic sense of 'incest')

ramakriya
Posts: 1876
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 02:05

Post by ramakriya »

cmlover wrote:(By the by was it permitted in any culture? Sub can tell us whether the animals have any intrinsic sense of 'incest')
I think it was practiced in ancient Egypt.

As per a novel I have read, there are instances of marriages between siblings in the vEda ( purukutsa story).

Which brings me to the following question:

If draupadi is daughter of drupada, panchAli means princess of pAnchAla kingdom, kaikEyi is princess of kEkaya, mAdri is princess of madra kingdom - Who could kousalya be?

If the answer is princess of kOsala, then how is she related to daSaratha?

What is (if anything is ) wrong in this logic?

-Ramakriya

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Wasn't kOsala a separate kingdom from dasharatha's?

kssuresh
Posts: 54
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 08:05

Post by kssuresh »

drshrikaanth wrote:I see what you say.
mahakavi wrote:I am yet to come across a man's face to be described as moon-like. Sivan's song "vadanamE candra bimbhamO" is by a man to woman.

That is my take.
There are lots of references to males being described as moon-faced. Not in the least uncommon or odd . A couple I give below.

tyAgarAja describes rAma as tArakAdhipAnana in the kamAc kRti- sujanajIvana.

candravadanan gOpAlakRShna in Papanasam Sivan's sAmikku sari evarE in kEdAragauLa
I too remember to have heard that this song is about both Rama's and Sita's exclamation about each other.

kssuresh
Posts: 54
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 08:05

Post by kssuresh »

mahakavi wrote:
drshrikaanth wrote:>>kannimADam tannil munnE ninRavar<<

It is sad you do not see the alternate interpretation. kannimADam tannil munnE- "in the anterior part of the balcony".
Really!! The vEdALam will climb up the murungai maram until it hears the RIGHT answer from the respondent. So you see what happened....

munnE. It means "front " as in "munnE vandu nI ADaDi..." in vanjcikkOTTai vAlibhan song. What is the difference between "anterior" and "front"?

tannil means "in". The phase is so simple it escapes me as to how some strange meaning can be deduced for it!

It does not refer to rAma who is on the street by any means.

gee, how many times I should point out? The title is, "sItaiyaik kaNDu rAman aiyural" QED!
True the title is so. That does not mean the 'whole' song is Rama's version.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

If AK intended this song to be a duet, he would have given a subtitle "sItai rAmanaik kaNDu aiyural". He didn't. He gave only one title, "rAman sItaiyaik kaNDu aiyural". Period.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

kssuresh:
If you want to insist your interpretation is correct against the available evidence (and if you read AK's mind more correctly than others can), there is nothing we can do to settle this.

kssuresh
Posts: 54
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 08:05

Post by kssuresh »

ksrimech wrote:
mahakavi wrote:Now a quiz on another aruNAcala kavi's (hindOLam) song, "rAmanukku mannan muDi"
(a)What would be title for the song that AK would have given for this if he didn't do so already? Also (b) who is uttering and who is the recipient?
Mahakavi, Here are my guesses:

(a) dayaratan kopattAn pulambal (???) - What I want to say it the rants of an angry daSaratA.
(b) dayaratan pEsu girAn - kaikEyi kETkirAL.

BTW which is #13? It says DRS.
I think it is by kaikeyi to kooni. (If somebody hasn't already said this.)

kssuresh
Posts: 54
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 08:05

Post by kssuresh »

mahakavi wrote:kssuresh:
If you want to insist your interpretation is correct against the available evidence (and if you read AK's mind more correctly than others can), there is nothing we can do to settle this.
Evidence, just as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And it is not insistence, but a point of view, and an innocent one at that. BTW, who are the "others"?

vasya10
Posts: 101
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 22:32

Post by vasya10 »

yatEyam:

sa ramachandraH katham bhuvaH patI bhavati , yadA rAmasya patnI bhuvaH putrI asti ?

How can Rama become 'world's' husband, when his wife is 'world's' daughter ?

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

We have said it, we have heard it, and we are all thinking it over--I mean, the WHOLE thread--I haven't stopped thinking. Do you think I should stop thinking and get on with it? An icon is absolutely necessary now, lest someone thinks I am very serious. Now, I have to think about the appropriate icon. My! I am lost...

ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Post by ksrimech »

cmlover wrote:Right
Is it not being married to both the mother and daughter at the same time? Sita becomes his daughter by becoming the 'bhU pati' :)
(By the by was it permitted in any culture? Sub can tell us whether the animals have any intrinsic sense of 'incest')
Is there not a similar question which kabandA asks SrIrAmA when he is granted mOkSam? I'm not sure about what answer SrIrAmA gave him.

Sundara Rajan
Posts: 1081
Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 08:19

Post by Sundara Rajan »

We have already digressed a lot from "music" on this thread. A little more may not hurt !Talking about incest and religion, incest MUST have taken place, according to the old testament, between the children of Adam & Eve, for otherwise how else did the human race multiply ?

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Back then it was not considered incest. The primary purpose of the existence of people of both genders was to procreate. Yes what is now known as "incest" was considered acceptable in prehistoric times--especially between Eve and her children. Adam was not involved then because, according to Old Testament, there were no female children for Adam and Eve--only Cain, Abel, and Seth. (most people are not even aware of Seth -even among Christians). So the next generation after Cain and Abel must have originated in "incest". Remember our friend Oedipus in Greek mythology too!

As for cmlover's question of incest among animals, I don't think that question arises at all. While I am not aware of any studies to that effect, I am sure several zoo-anthropologists and primatologists have studied it. My own impression is: since they don't possess the sixth sense (or do they?--some primates are known to touch computer screens to identify numbers sequentially after they watch them once and when the screen goes blank later!) they don't even analyze "incest". Instinct precedes analysis (if at all the latter occurs).

kutty
Posts: 149
Joined: 21 May 2005, 08:23

Post by kutty »

Friends

I have been reading this thread yesterday several times as to find out in what way we are, for that matter Carnatic Music lovers, are concerned/benefitted in knowing whether the song "Yaaro' Ivar Yaaro'?" was attributed to Rama or Sita by AruNaachalakkaviraayar or whether the sholakam quoted by one of the members deals with incest or whether Kaike'yi wrongly mentioned 14/12 years. I feel that this forum looses its sanctity with such irrelevant discussions or perverted quotes. It is my earnest request to the Web Administrator to formulate guidelines as to the limits up to which a discussion on a subject can go. While I request these members to keep this site clean and purposeful, I would like to put an end to this discussion through the following information:

01. In 50's, when my mother taught me the above song of AK, the AP was "Kannimaadam Munne' Vandhavar" and not "Kannimaadam Thanil Munne Nindravar". In those days I heard musicians also singing the song in the same way. The word "Thanil" is a later addition, may be due to some Vidhwan's wrong paadaantharam or wild imagination. Similarly, the other song actually was sung as "Raamanukku MaNi Mudi Thariththaale' " and not as mentioned.

02. AK never gave titles or used Vruththam for his songs which would have been otherwise mentioned in the publication of his songs by Prof P Sambamoorthy BA BL in is book "Indian Songs" published by The Indian Music Publishing House, GT, Madras in 1927 for 6 Annas. I personally feel that these are also additions done later like the "SherugukavikaL' in "ThirukkuRaL".

03. By nature women are passive and never express their love openly and in haste like men. They are like Lotuses or Lilies blossoming on seeing the Sun or the Moon respectively. Here Sita is like Lily after seeing the face of Rama that is symbolized as Moon as such the Kavi intends to say that it is Sita to whom the song is attributed mostly except the C1 which is the reaction of Rama. Sita is asking her maids as to who is standing before the "Kannimaadam" as soon as Rama admires her through C1. Harikatha Stalwarts of yester years had also been explaining this song in this fashion and if AK meant what had been discussed in this thread, at least one of them should have definitely raised the issue. This is like discussing unnecessarily whether Maharaja Swaathi ThiruNaal really composed the krithis attributed to him or they were the compositions of the Tanjore Quartets instead of enjoying those compositions.

04. As per Sanskrit, though I am a novice, the term 'Pathi' also indicates Master, Owner, Proprietor, Lord, Possessor, Governor, Ruler et al besides the husband. In patriarchal society, the eldest son becomes the ruler after his father which does not mean that he becomes the husband of the queen, his mother because he has become pathi – the ruler (not husband). The ruler of Bhoo need not necessarily be therefore the husband of Bhoo. Can we argue that a son in law of a mother in law cannot become the husband of her daughter because he is her son by law! Is it not foolishness?

05. The law is constantly changing. What was applicable during the period of Ramayana need not necessary apply during the period of Mahabharata later. As per the Law of Easement, we have now, a person staying in a rented house continuously for 20 years, the owner of which is unknown till that duration, and thus unable to pay the rent but deposits in a bank as per the directives of the court becomes its lawful owner on expiry of 20 years. During the period of Ramayana this was 14 years and Mahabharata 12 years in exile and 1 year incognito. Hence, Kaike'yi knew definitely this law and to have the legal right for Bharatha, she expressed 14 years and not 14 days, 12 years or 12 days. Though she was good till ManTHara polluted her mind, her intention after the intervention of ManTHara was certainly not good or in favour of Rama.

Lakshman
Posts: 14019
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 18:52

Post by Lakshman »

Kutty wrote:
AK never gave titles or used Vruththam for his songs
In the book Ramanataka Kirtanaigal, a Sarasvati Mahal, Tanjavur publication, many of the songs not only have titles but also include viruttams preceding the songs. The discussion in this thread (whether the words were uttered by Rama or Sita) was initiated when the Viruttam that goes with this song was posted.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

It appears that kutty has the FINAL (and authoritative) word on everything in this thread and what Arunacala Kavi wrote and meant. So be it!

kutty
Posts: 149
Joined: 21 May 2005, 08:23

Post by kutty »

Hats off Mahakavi

That should be the spirit. Thanks a lot.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

Please folks, control your tempers. This is not the place for all this. You can have these kinds of interactions offline if you want. I might simply ban people who dont maintain civility.

That someone was insensitive to you is no reason to abuse them back. Please contact me for any actions against members who are incivil. Thanks.

I will be deleting the ugly posts now, but next time onwards, I cant do this cleanup work.

Repeat request - dont be incivil either by yourself or in response to someone else's incivility. Please take this as my final request on this issue.

----------
Update: Last 5 posts above this one were deleted.

Post Reply