Missing Prasa Consonance

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 18 Oct 2012, 11:27

One finds there are quite a few songs of the Trinity that do not adhere to the prasa rules. Take the Lalgudi song 'mahita pravriddha srImati'. For mahita in pallavi, you have pAhi, the prathamAkSharam of pallavi being hrsva (kuril) and that of anupallavi being dhIrgha (neDil) which is wrong. Take paradEvatA of Dikshitar. For the pallavi para you have shAradA, the same non-consonance as the Lalgudi song. There are several such instances like this.

I have heard someone saying long ago that the Lalgudi songs are not Thyagaraja's. So, is it a case of spurious stuff composed by someone else in Thyagaraja, Dikshitar and Shyama Sastris' names? The original songs of the three of them satisfy grammatical rules fully that are required to be followed.

I'd like a healthy discussion on this topic.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 18 Oct 2012, 14:31

Just because some places one instance of a grammar rule was not applied, we cannot come to the decision that it should be "spurious stuff" . In fact, stuff is what we lack these days to judge the prayogas of yesteryears. Many pundits of previous generations felt and of this generation feel that Mahakavi Kalidasa, Bana Bhatta, etc did not conform to many rules , but have been accepted since , as they were used by poets of great eminence many centuries back. What do you lose if they are not grammatically correct ? The song is definitely fine, conforming to musical sense, isn't it ?

There are many other compositions which are at best poems as originally composed but glorified unnecessarily as " songs " after having been edited, modified or altered to suit musical rendition, the end result of such excercise is not necessarily that much palatable. Annamacharya, Periasamy Thooran, etc would fall into this category.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 19 Oct 2012, 11:12

kittappa wrote:One finds there are quite a few songs of the Trinity that do not adhere to the prasa rules...

"rules" must be the wrong term here.

One can deduce that "prasa" is one of those nice-to-have adornments but not a deal breaker.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 21 Oct 2012, 21:18

http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... sa#p194309

The major text that speaks about the principles and rules for composing musical forms are given in Tallapakam Chinnayya's SankIrtana lakSaNamu [SL] in telugu, which is supposed to be a translation / adaptation of a sanskRt sankIrtana-lakSaNam written by his grandfather annammAcArya.

The next is the muhana-prAsAnta-vyavastha [MPV] of svAti tirunAL, which he wrote, using the songs of Margadarshi sheSayyangAr, as the material from which he derived the principles of prasa, yati and 'antarukti' [the latter term in all probability, was introduced by Swati Tirunal] as applicable to the crafting of musical compositions.

The exceptions listed by Kittappa are covered in Swati's treatise. it may be interesting to list out the prAsa exceptions of the trinity, and check all of them against the rules of the MPV.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 23 Oct 2012, 11:27

keerthi, thanks for the explanation and the link to the discussion. But I don't possess the books that you mention. So, can you list out the exceptions in the kritis of the Trinity, at your leisure of course? I'll also try to do it.

What do you lose if they are not grammatically correct ? The song is definitely fine, conforming to musical sense, isn't it ?

classicallover, it is not enough for a song to be musically sensible alone. It has got to conform to certain rules as keerthi has explained. The first letter and the second letter will have to adhere to rules, which the Trinity have done in their songs. The only exception I have found is in the kriti prArabdamiTluNDagA (swarAvaLi), where the anupallavi starts as 'bAlaguNa shIla', here 'la' substituting for ra which is quite correct because both letters belong to the same group, ya, ra, la, va. I certainly have a problem with mahita pravriddha (anupallavi-pAhi) because Thyagaraja could have easily used a word with the first letter as hrsva. He could have composed this way:

p: mahita pravriddha srImati, pAhimAm
ap: guha ganapati janani

or anupallavi starting with 'ahanda rahita' or a line starting with 'sahaja' or, in a hundred different ways, the genius not only in music that he was, but also in poetry, grammar etc.

In the absence of correct and credible grammar, what is wrong in saying that such and such a composition is spurious? I thought that Thyagaraja was a great sufferer in these matters, but now I find that Dikshitar seemed to have suffered the worst with Shyama Sastri scoring a distant third..

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 23 Oct 2012, 23:05

kittappa ,

How can you decide which grammar is the most correct or perfect one ? And hence you cannot arrive at the conclusion that the song is spurious. Your statement that the letters ra 7 la can be interchanged is also a convention only - "ralayorabheda: " . Which means, for example , the coconut can be said as naarikelam or naalikeram also. But this convention is not used everywhere which will result in chaos.

Even great men compose certain things at certain times in a certain fashion. Even it is said that poets like Kalidasa, Dandi, etc have used certain phrases which are generally not accepted by pundits of today or even of a previous generation. Mallinatha Suri ( of around 1300 AD ) who had written the commentaries for the kaavyaas has said that " there is an accepted convention & tradition that "Mahakavi prayogas " should be accepted as such , since, they come from very divine or great men and some of those prayogas were found correct as per earlier rules of grammar ". Samskritam is the language of the Gods. The guru of the devas Brihaspati was the originator of the grammar and he taught Indra first who is believed to have learnt for more than 10,000 divine years but still could not fathom its depth. So he wrote the first treatise on Samskrit grammar. Then the moon learnt from Brihaspati & Indra and wrote the "Chaandravyaakaranam". Hanuman learnt nine different forms or aspects of grammar from Sun and came to be known as "Navavyaakarana nipuna" ( refer MD's kriti Pavanaatmaja in Naata raaga ). Many centuries later Panini standardised to a very large extent the grammar, the missing links in which were plugged by Katyayana and later commentated upon by Patanjali Maharshi. The language of Ramayana & Mahabharata are different from today's usage. The language of the Vedas is different as well as those of other sciences like Ayurveda, astrology, etc..

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 23 Oct 2012, 23:15

kittappa wrote: I certainly have a problem with mahita pravriddha (anupallavi-pAhi) because Thyagaraja could have easily used a word with the first letter as hrsva. He could have composed this way:
<snip>

Leaving aside the "spurious" issue for the moment, it seems clear that whoever composed mahita pravurtha was either unaware of the grammar rule that you describe or disregarded it as unimportant. Can you think of a third option?

I find the former unlikely looking at the quality of the composition otherwise.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 26 Oct 2012, 11:15

Leaving aside the "spurious" issue for the moment, it seems clear that whoever composed mahita pravurtha was either unaware of the grammar rule that you describe or disregarded it as unimportant. Can you think of a third option?
I find the former unlikely looking at the quality of the composition otherwise.

Why leave aside the spurious issue? For your convenience I suppose! There is only one option in this song. That it is spurious. Thyagaraja was neither unaware nor disregarded prasa rules as seen from his compositions. The language and poetry of this song 'mahita pravirddha' is unlike Thyagaraja's. Someone has cleverly taken words from his other compositions and tried to copy them. As I pointed out, Thyagaraja could have easily followed prasa rules in this case and made the song one of great quality.

Your mentioning about celestial beings like Brihaspati, the Sun, Moon, etc and Kalidasa do not have any relevance to this topic here. First letter and second letter consonance is found in South Indian poetry, not in Sanskrit. These rules were adopted by the great music composers even while composing Sanskrit songs. Kalidasa was not a composer, only a poet. Obviously you have not looked at all the compositions of the Trinity. I request you to do so. You'll find a lot of spurious stuff, especially in Dikshitar. Songs like 'srI kriShNam bhaja' in tODi, srI satyanArAyaNam and pashupatIshwaram in shubapantuvarALi are all spurious. Written by lesser beings not well versed in grammar nor were they poets.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 26 Oct 2012, 11:44

Kittappa is bent upon proving his pet theory of spurious stuff by hook or crook is what is evident from his posts. And he also contradicts himself and possibly put forward his ignorance as follows :

First letter and second letter consonance is found in South Indian poetry, not in Sanskrit. These rules were adopted by the great music composers even while composing Sanskrit songs.

He has missed the points listed out in my previous posts by a wide margin. The usage of embellishments in the language has been in vogue for quite long time even before the rules were made. Panini constructed the rules based on the different types of usage prevalent in different parts of the country. Even if prasa has been in South Indian poetry, it is well accepted by scholars that it has been borrowed from Sanskrit and not the other way around as Kittappa proposes. So what if Kalidasa is not a composer ? Kittappa wants to belittle him as " only a poet " ? Poets don't know the grammar and they have written the epics without the embellishments ( alankaaraas ) ?

I sincerely feel it is not worthwhile to contribute further in this topic where Kittappa is insistent on enforcing his personal opinions resulting out of some misconceptions.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 26 Oct 2012, 18:08

Kittappa, I understand your concern about the fact that an overwhelming majority of songs by the trinity follow prAsa concord between the Pallavi and Anupallavi in a way such that both conditions are fulfilled -

1. the second consonant of both P and P is the same or from the same set.
2. the vowels preceding both P and AP are similar - both short (hrasva / kuril) or both long (dIrgha / neDil).

And that there seem to be a few exceptions, where #1 is upheld but #2 isn't. However, this 'internal' evidence may not be enough to label songs as spurious or original. Hence my earlier request that we accumulate enough evidence /data about 1. The presence, percentage of these exceptions / examples in the compositions of the trinity and their contemporaries, in the songs of earlier songsters like the haridAsas and annamAcArya and kSEtragna; and 2. Any textual references to how the rules of prAsa are delineated in text of poetics and alankara shAstra from Sanskrit and the Dravidian languages.

Find Swati Tirunal's text here.

As for the language of Mahita-pravRddha, Could you point out to any other features that make you doubt its pedigree? I find the language quite in keeping with tyAgarAja's style, especially when he sings on the mother goddess [see Amma dharmasamvardhani in aTAna, dArini telusukoNti in Suddha sAveri or sundari ninnandarilo in bEgada. they all have caranas resonating with prAsAkSaras].

I find a significant number of songs (>10) attributed to Swati tirunal with very similar differences between pallavi and anupallavi. It would be equally surprising if this is indeed a transgression of the rule for prAsa, and if ST has made such as mistake since he was an author on a treatise on the principles of prAsa. [Again, he doesn't mention the need for P-AP consonance].

Let us restrict this thread to discussion of the prAsa principles seen in musical compositions. Identification of original-spurious is so much more than merely P-AP prAsa concord isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classicallover. can you point to a reference that says that prAsa is a borrowing into south Indian poetry from SanskRt. I find that many scholars including V.Raghavan arguing that the strict use of a recurrent prAsAkSara for the second sylable being a dominant feature of South Indian poetry. It has been de riguer in Tamil, Kannada and Telugu, while it is difficult to find examples of this strict dvitIyAkSara prAsa in Sanskrit poetry; where all prAsa is optional and is used only as an embellishment, to use your word.

Even from a cursory inspection of classical poetry in SI languages, and in Sanskrit, it is self evident that prAsa and anuprAsa are merely shabdAlankAras in Sanskrit, while the second aksara prAsa / edugai is a no-compromise requirement of classical SI poetry.

Regarding your calling Annamacarya a poet and not a composer, I have a strong grouse against that and have said so elsewhere in response to a post by you. We can't judge annamAcArya by the flaky tunes being imputed on his padas by modern tunesmiths. He is the author of a sankIrtana lakSaNam, and if he isn't qualified to be called a vAggEyakAra, nobody is. The copper plates with his compositions, were commissioned by his family members, and clearly mention the rAga in which he's sung each piece. Just because we haven't had the tunes for his songs handed down to us, it is wrong to characterise his songs as

at best poems as originally composed but glorified unnecessarily as " songs "

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 26 Oct 2012, 20:57

classicallover, thank you for leaving this thread. You have no arguments to counter me and you are at best flippant. We need serious people who really know about these things.

keerthi: I suspect the language used in 'mahita pravriddha'. It is, in my opinion, somewhat deliberate and unlike the smoothness or fluency of the songs you point out like amma dharmasamvardhini etc. Take sundari nI divya rUpamunu, apart from the beautiful music created, look at his language composed using all the conventions. I am not sure of the same kind of quality in mahita pravriddha.

Apart from the above, I wish to point out another dimension in this problem which RaviSri pointed out to me in an e-mail today in response to my query on this subject. It is quite possible that the disciples to whom songs like these were transmitted might have forgotten the original words and substituted other words which occurred to them. We must remember those were the days of no printing or books, everything had to be learnt rote and retained in the mind. In the absence of a system like varNakramam as in the Vedas which help Vedic scholars to remember or recall the words, akSharAs, the complete grammar etc., in case they forget, in the case of music, it is quite possible that certain disciples might have forgotten the sequence of words or forgotten whole words or lines even. RaviSri pointed to the example of the nATa pancharatnam jagadAnandakArakA, in which the Tillaistanam version is very much different from the way the song is being sung now. The first charaNam in the Tillaistanam version is 'indranIla' and not 'amaratAraka'. The composer's mudra occurs every three charanams.

The absence of prAsa in 'rAmachanrENa samrakShitOham' and the solution to it was also pointed out. Ditto for 'dEvibrOva samayamidE'. Forgetfulness, later printing mistakes might also have contributed to these anomalies. I think we should look at this problem from this angle too though there is no way of verifying forgetfulness on the part of a disciple or a siShya paramparA. Printing mistakes of the early days can be excused though.

I would like a meaningful discussion on this instead of bringing Panini and other trEtAyuga personalities into this.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Oct 2012, 21:20

Please stop ad hominem and focus only on the issues objectively.
If you persist we will have to edit your posts which is unpleasant for us.

Moderator

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 26 Oct 2012, 22:21

Post #12 is addressed to ...?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Oct 2012, 23:02

All.
Everybody is entitled to personal opinion.
When there is a clash there should be civilized disagreement.
Moderators cannot mediate and thrust their views!
Posters are individally resposible for Facts...
Personal feuds should be through personal emails!

varsha · Post by **varsha** » 27 Oct 2012, 22:05

Just watching this endearing movie on DD LokSabha .
Can be watched tomorrow as well - repeat telecast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadar_Kirti

Plot includes a club called Chando Bani , where members are trained to speak to each other in rhyme.
A fine romantic comedy .

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 27 Oct 2012, 22:42

kittappa wrote: Why leave aside the spurious issue? For your convenience I suppose!

Exactly! It is terribly inconvenient to watch a shouting match!

There is only one option in this song. That it is spurious. Thyagaraja was neither unaware nor disregarded prasa rules as seen from his compositions. The language and poetry of this song 'mahita pravirddha' is unlike Thyagaraja's.

Other than the missing prasa consonance, what else is wrong? The prasa consonance rules you talk about are an awful lot like a computer algorithm of a composition generator. Art goes much beyond that. It takes more than mere mechanics to create a composition. You misunderstand the process of arriving at these rules. It is a process of reverse engineering compositions and trying to analyze and understand why they are beautiful. You misunderstand the creative process. Creative people do not sit with these rules, juggle words around and come up with compositions.

Someone has cleverly taken words from his other compositions and tried to copy them. As I pointed out, Thyagaraja could have easily followed prasa rules in this case and made the song one of great quality.

The clever "spurious" person could have done the same thing. Even you were able to do it, So why not the "spurious" person?

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 28 Oct 2012, 11:33

This has degenerated into a slander thread wherer the likes of sureshvv having nothing of quality to offer, indulges in mere abuse. No spurious composer or any ordinary human being can even dream to compose kritis of the quality of the Trinity. Your stance that anyone can produce quality songs is ridiculous. That is all you know about music and its great composers. You can stick with your dubious quality. You are not fit to participate in this discussion.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 28 Oct 2012, 13:53

kittappa wrote:This has degenerated into a slander thread wherer the likes of sureshvv having nothing of quality to offer, indulges in mere abuse.

If you tell me what you found abusive, I would like to retract it.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 28 Oct 2012, 19:29

Exactly! It is terribly inconvenient to watch a shouting match!

The clever "spurious" person could have done the same thing. Even you were able to do it,

If this is not slander, what is? I am not asking for a retraction. Please try to understand what I am saying. Creative people also have to adhere to rules, converntions etc. Take Subramanya Bharati. If hew wasn't creative who was? Yet, see his poems, they adhere to prasa rules or conventions. The Tevaram, Tiruvachagam, Tiruppavai have adhered to these conventions. Apart from the Sati Tirunal treatise keerthi refers to, there might have been tratises on Tamil poetry rules. It is for Tamil scholars to reveal if there are such references, because everyone has followed them.

There is another dimension that RaviSri pointed out to me in an e-mail today when I queried about this subject. It is possible that certain disciples who were taught the songs might have forgotten some of the words and substituted them for other words. In those days of no printing or books, people relied totally on rote memory, which over a period of time might play truant. RaviSri pointed out that the in Tillaistanam version of Jagadanandakaraka, the first charanam is 'indranIla pari....' instead of the now common 'amaratAraka'. SSP also gives different varisais for the song in the charanams. It is possible that certain disciples forgot the sequences and changed them as they remembered them.

I'll continue this tomorrow.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Oct 2012, 19:32

As far as I can see sureshvv has expressed his views in a decent language without attacking you personally in any way.
In fact it is your response which is highly provocative. Statements like

You are not fit to participate in this discussion.

are not part of any helpful discussion.

I am locking this thread

Moderator

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 30 Oct 2012, 10:06

In deference to some of your views I have unlocked this thread.
Let discussions continue objectively; and there be no name calling!

Moderator

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 30 Oct 2012, 12:24

keerthi,

1. What I said about the embellishments, you have said the same thing differently. Some pundits of repute whom I have consulted after seeing your post confirm that the alankaaraas ( shabdanu prasam, chekanuprasam, madhyaprasam, antya prasam, yati prasam, gopuchcha yati, srotovaha yati, upamaalankaram, etc ) were present from times immemorial in Samskritam as is evident in some of the Puranas ( Agni, Vaayu, Padma, etc ). The essence of the alankaaraas as existed in so many of the texts and the usage during their time was extracted, elucidated and brought to light as a treatise " Kaavya prakaasika " by Mammata Bhatta. Later on, as the regional languages started emerging, the principles of alankaaraas were taken more seriously in order to popularise and spread the languages among the masses. The prasas were useful in enabling the memorisation of the poems ( as was in vogue in the Gurukula tradition ) during the teachings by the masters. Even today, if we forget the anupallavi, we scout our memory using the yati prasaakshara in the pallavi. Many of Purandara Dasa's compositions have been mixed up due to the vagaries of time, irrespective of the existence of prasa consonance. The same charana figures in more than one Devarnama or the same song may have different charanas in different books.

Hence the alankaaras are principally of Samskritam origin and were taken more seriously by the other languages for impressing the minds of the people .

2. Annamacharya issue : Your right to have a grouse against me or my views is not denied. But as is evident from the views of the descendants of the poet and then later on collectors like Rallapalli Anantakrishna Sarma, Vedam Venkatraya Sastri and others, the raga in which the song is desired to be sung is only indicated in the copper plates/manuscripts. The appearance of the names of the ragas does not indicate that he wrote the notations too. It is accepted that (1) he was an extempore passionate poet (2) though we do not know many of the ragas of those years, Annamacharya's poems cannot be considered as Classical Music songs.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 30 Oct 2012, 23:42

kittappa wrote:
Creative people also have to adhere to rules, converntions etc.

Have you heard of "poetic license"? No slander (or offense) intended.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 31 Oct 2012, 13:48

My thanks are due to the admin for reopening this thread. I am also sorry if I have hurt anyone, including admin, sureshvv and classicallover.

Yes, there is such a thing as poetic licence. One can come across it even in Trinity's compositions. e.g in ambA nIlAyatAkShi, the word Adari in the anupallavi. Though the Sanskrit word Adara is there, MD has chosen to change it into Tamil grammar, 'Adari' (protect or support me). That's one instance. Thyagaraja has done it in many instances in his poetry. But pAhi for mahita is not poetic licence. It is a mistake. I have examined upto 100 songs of Thyagaraja in TSP's book, upto the 19th Melakarta and one song in Bhairavi. In no song in the first 100, does he violate the principle of prAsa either first letter or second letter. The pallavi, anupallavi and charaAnam of all the 100 songs conform to the prAsa rules or converntions, call what we will.

Here's where we have to examine a third angle that of forgetfulness on the part of the disciples leading to their substituting other words, either their own or borrowed from somewhere else. I guess that must have happened in the case of 'mahita, 'pAhi'. Otehrwise the kriti on second examination looks fine.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 31 Oct 2012, 15:29

Dikshitar has composed many songs with antya praasam. Tyagaraja hasn't followed that in many of his kritis . Based on this one single point, shall we disqualify Tyagaraja as a composer and belittle his songs as spurious ? On the other hand, even if we do that, does Tyagaraja or the Trinity get affected in any way ? We are not doing them a favour by accepting their compositions.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 31 Oct 2012, 19:31

The antya prAsa does not seem to be a rule in South Indian poetry, whereas the prathama akShara kuril-neDil and dvitIyAkShara prAsa rules are mandatory. Dikshitar followed the antya prAsa for additional beauty. This is only optional.

Of course, we are not doing the Trinity a favour by accepting their songs. They composed for their own edification. If people cared for their songs their blessings would accrue, otherwise they are not the losers.

I am looking at the remaining songs of Thyagaraja and hope to write my findings by and by. Then I'll move to Shyama Sastri. All this is not find fault with them, far from it. It is to ascertain how many songs fall under the realm of doubt. I reckon it would only be very few. It is Dikshitar who is the major sufferer in this case.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 01 Nov 2012, 13:52

kittappa wrote:whereas the prathama akShara kuril-neDil and dvitIyAkShara prAsa rules are mandatory

Whoever composed/transcribed/propagated "mahita pravrutha" decided that in this specific case the rule could be forsaken in the larger interest of the lyric. It does not make the composition any less.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 01 Nov 2012, 14:16

Contradiction One :

All this is not find fault with them, far from it. It is to ascertain how many songs fall under the realm of doubt.

Hmph ! If you don't try to find faults, there will be no doubts !!!

Contradiction Two :

..... If people cared for their songs their blessings would accrue, otherwise they are not the losers. ...... It is Dikshitar who is the major sufferer in this case.

If we don't care, how or why does Dikshitar lose or suffer ?

I am sure , many of us in this forum are not qualified to create a " realm of doubt " nor are we sufficiently capable of putting the Trinity's compositions under the scanner. This is akin to calibrating an American or German primary standard with an Indian secondary standard. Concentrating on trivial things and foregoing the main music would be the " Penny-wise Pound foolish " syndrome.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 01 Nov 2012, 19:57

I am sure , many of us in this forum are not qualified to create a " realm of doubt " nor are we sufficiently capable of putting the Trinity's compositions under the scanner.

Your latest post is your opinion and you cannot speak for others. There is nothing wrong in putting the songs under the scanner. By doing so, we also come across linguistic, poetic beauties in the songs. I suppose you have had no experience in reading the songs of the Trinity. Scholars have examined the songs of the three and written and spoken about the beauties that underlie therein. There is nothing wrong in a music lover doing this. I reserve the right to examine the songs despite your objections. You don't seem to follow my line of arguement, rather you seem eager to provoke me. I don't even know whether you have read my posts carefully.

In 'mahita pavirddha' itself, there is a phrase in the third charanam, 'padArtha puNya dUrE'. TSP explains that the meaning of this phrase is not clear. This conundrum has not been solved. Either the actual phrase was forgotten by the disciples or there is some deep philosophical meaning to it which spiritual seekers can explain.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 01 Nov 2012, 20:07

If we don't care, how or why does Dikshitar lose or suffer ?

You have taken two separate sentences from my posts and tried to link them. I think you don't understand my English. Dikshitar did not suffer personally. The word suffer has many meanings. Here it means that Many people composed songs in Sanskrit and ascribed them to Dikshitar. You didn't understand that.

Hmph ! If you don't try to find faults, there will be no doubts !!!

You may be a Self-Realised Soul to say this, I am not. I am an ordinary human being who finds faults. And for good reason.

Whoever composed/transcribed/propagated "mahita pravrutha" decided that in this specific case the rule could be forsaken in the larger interest of the lyric. It does not make the composition any less.

No tanscriber/propagator has the right to do this. Even composers have to adhere to rules as I have pointed out with evidence.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 01 Nov 2012, 23:48

kittappa wrote:
No transcriber/propagator has the right to do this. Even composers have to adhere to rules as I have pointed out with evidence.

Understand your stand. But what do we do now?

1. Not sing "Mahita Pravurta" because of missing prasa consonance

2. Sing it after including your suggested changes to add in prasa consonance

3. Sing it as it is being sung now and clearly state the missing prasa caveat

4. Some other option?

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 02 Nov 2012, 11:19

Your third option is the best. Sing the song as it is. The raga structure, the kAmbhOji is very beautiful, so we just sing it as it is. Otherwise how do we trace the original? It would have been possible maybe about 60 years ago when people could have cross referred to the elders of the other siShya paramparas of Thyagaraja. But no such thing seems to have happened.

Here too, no other parampara other than the Lalgudi disciples (descendants of Ramayyar, direct disciple, at whose request Thagaraja visited Lalgudi on his way to Srirangam) seems to know this song. T.K.Rangachari, Suguna Varadachari etc., seem to have learnt the Lalgudi songs from the Lalgudi school, either Gopala Iyer or Jayaraman. Only Isha pAhimAm belonging to Lalgudi seems to be known to the Umayalpuram parampara. I am given to understand that neither the Tillaistanam nor the Walajapet disciples knew any of the Lalgudi songs. This is rather surprising considering the fact that all the other kShEtra kritis, especially on that tour of Thyagaraja, kritis belonging to Srirangam, Kancheepuram, Tiruvotriyur, Kovvur and Tirupati are known widely among the various siShya paramparas.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 03 Nov 2012, 01:13

kittappa wrote:Your third option is the best. Sing the song as it is.

Most concerts don't announce the essential details of the items featured and it is left as an exercise to the rasika (which is just fine by me). So it would be best not to hold our breath for announcements on Prasa Consonance.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Nov 2012, 01:19

So it would be best not to hold our breath for announcements on Prasa Consonance.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 28 Nov 2012, 16:36

Kittappa [and others],

I found a bunch of examples with prAsa anomalies in the compositions of the trinity and other vAggEyakAras like SvAti tiruNAl, which I thought are relevant to this discussion. I noticed that the divyanAmas of tyAgarAja may or may not have an anupallavi, and hence don’t have a requirement of prAsa concord between pallavi and the next unit.

In the kRtis of tyAgarAja, shyAma shAstri and SvAti tirunAL, there are a few that do not follow the tridhAtuka format of P-AP and 1-3 (identical dhatu’ed) Carana-s. Songs with a pallavi followed by several caranas, often with different tunes, don’t have an anupallavi sometimes.

Consider paramAnandanatana in kEdAra, kanakashaila vihAriNi in punnAgavarAli and bRocEvArevarE in srIranjani for each of the above composers. Sometimes, the first carana of such songs is labelled anupallavi, leading to doubts about prAsa concord. One example could be the Bhairavi song shrIraghuvara sugunAlaya [See below]. Another example is shrInAradamaunE in bhairavi, which has the first carana manasAra kOritini wrongly labelled as anupallavi in RangarAmAnuja Ayyangar’s book. I don’t know about other publications/ pAthAntaras.

I only present the data that I’ve collected here. I will eventually post some more stuff regarding the principles of prAsa in south Indian metric and musical compositions.

TyagarAja –

Type I - Varga prAsa and samIpa prAsa examples

Ika gAvalasinadEmi manasA / akhilANDakOti – balahamsa
KaLala nErcinA / kalimi lEmulaku – dIpakam
dayajUcuTakidi vELa / bhava-vAraNa – gAnavAridhi
nAyeDa vanchana / nalugurikai – nabhOmaNi
prarabdhmam / bAla guNa shIla - swarAvaLi

Several songs beginning with Raghu – have words with g as the prAsAkSara – see examples in huseni, sahana, suddha desi, pantuvarali

Type II
Nin(n)u bAsi / anagha supuNya – balahamsa
Nannu kanna talli / kanakAngi – sindhu kannaDa

Type III

inta saukhyamani / dAnta sItA-kAnta – kapi
shrI-raghuvara / tarAna lEni - bhairavi * [Could be a case of carana labelled as anupallavi]
mahitapravRddha / pAhi vadana-jita - kAmbhOji

type IV - antarukti type of prAsa pattern

The anupallavi starts at an atIta eduppu / graham; and the segment of the AP that corresponds to the pallavi eduppu demonstrates prAsa concord.

Entanucu sairintunu / Muni cintanIya – yadukulakAmbhOji
kAsicchEde / haridAsulaku – gauLipantu
cUtAmu rArE / puruhUtadulaku – kApi
toli janmamuna jEyu / ni mahima phalamEmO – bilahari
darshanamu sEya / parAmarshimpa – narAyaNagauLa [kEdAragauLa acc to some]
AragimpavE / raghuvIra – tODi
vENugAnalOluni /alivENulella – kEdAragaula
kSINamai tiruga / gIrvANa-nATaka – mukhAri
bhaktuni cAritramu / Asaktileka - bEgaDa

Outliers -

sArasanEtra-apAra guNa – sankarAbharaNa [No anupallavi]

This is an anomaly. This is a song with one pallavi and one caranam, most of which has shaky lyrics. It is fashioned after some popular European tune, and it could be that the tune of the European original doesn't allow for a tridhAtuka structure.

The other examples from tyAgarAja’s contemporaries are –

dikSitar -

- rAmacandrENa samrakSitOham / ramAbharatI – mAnji [You know the suggested explanation / solution]
- srIkRSNam bhajarE rE / cakra-nivArita – rUpavati

Shyama shastri

- nA manavini vinu / nemmadini – saurASTra varnam
- pAhi mAm srI rajarAjEswari / simhAsanArUDhE – nATa
- mAyamma / satyAnanda – nATakuranji

svati tirunAl

I have chosen to give an non-exhaustive list covering the (relatively) well known songs.

Set I
- dEva dEva kalayAmi tE / bhuvanatrayamOhana – mAlavagauLa
- satatam tAvaka padasEvanam / cUta-sAyaka-cArumUrtE – kharaharapriya
- parvatI-nAyaka / sarva-lOkaikanAtha – bauLI
- anjanEya / kunjara-varENya – sAvEri
- mAmava sadA varadE / shamala-giri – natakuranji
- kalayAmi raghurAmam / nIlOtpala – bEgaDa
- kAntanODu / kAtarAkSi - aTHAna

All the examples seen in this set follow the same pattern as seen in Mahita-pravRddha srImati. Something to think about.

Set II
- sarasijanAbha murArE / pAda-padmam – mAlavagauLa varnam
- srIkumAra-nagarAlayE / sritajana-kalpaka-pAdapE – athANa
- bhAvayE sArasanAbham / bhUmi ramA - kIravANi

As I said earlier, I will wait for people to respond to this, before I say anything more about prAsa in the context of SI literature / music.

kittappa · Post by **kittappa** » 29 Nov 2012, 11:18

keerthi, you have taken a lot of trouble to present these examples. Thanks first for that. I'll have to respond only after I have examined each and every kriti that you have mentioned. I would like to take only the Trinity as examples.

rAmacandrENa samrakSitOham / ramAbharatI – mAnji [You know the suggested explanation / solution]

Yes, I do know it and that suggestion/solution is brilliant. And I cannot resist saying that the solution came from you, not directly to me from you, but you know through whom! One has to give credit to where it belongs. Our friend through whom this solution came suggests that it could only be a printing mistake in the SSP, or a wrong transcription by Subbarama Dikshitar, either of which opinion may be correct.

pallavi:
rAmachandrENa samrakshitOham - sItA
ramAbhAratigauri ramaNa svarUpENa

anupallavi
kAmakOTi sundarENa kamanIya kandharENa

charaNam
kOmaLaghana shyAmENa kOdaNDarAmENa (followed by the madhyamakAlam). This was your solution. Brilliant. Satisfies all conditions.

In kanakashaila vihAriNi, though the charanams have the same music, the prasa is followed in the first charanam which is vanajabhava harinutE.

You did not mention dEvibrOva samayamidE, to which also you found a solution, the whole pallavi being, dEvibrOva samayamidE ati vEgamE vacchi. The anupallavi being nAvedalu tIrchi karuNinchavE shankari kAmAkShi. I accept your explanation in this too. Please continue.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 29 Nov 2012, 15:19

As I said earlier, I will wait for people to respond to this, before I say anything more ................

Reserving your judgement for another day , your honour ??

Some corrections / observations :

Type I :

dayajuuchuTakidi / bhava vaaraNa --> dayajuuchuTakidi / bhaya vaaraNa ;

Type IV :

toli janmamuna / nii mahima phalamEmo --> PhalamEmo , nii mahima phalamEmo
aaragimpavE / raghuvira --> aragimpavE / viirajanakajaakara .. raghu | viirajanakajaakara
vENugaanalOluni / alivENulella --> vENugaanalOluni / vENulella drishTi.....ali | vEnulella drishTi....
kShiiNamai / giirvaaNa --> kShiiNamai / vaaNa .......gir | vaaNa .....pu | raaNa....

Since the prefixed are taken / occurring in the avartana behind the main start, there is no break in the praasa nor in the meaning. This is a very regular feature in Telugu poetry.

About "raamachandrENa" it is a kriti with only the pallavi and charaNa known commonly as the " samashTi charaNa " kritis , of which type Dikshitar has many to his credit. Hence no need to debate about it. Therefore, the kriti would go thus :

P: raamachandrENa .......swaruupENa ||

C: kaamakOTi .................raamENa | ( madhyamakaalam ) maamaka .................................maanitEna ||

About other songs, it requires quite some time and I have little of it as of now.

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 29 Nov 2012, 22:14

classicallover,
You have made explicit exactly what keerthi meant in type IV. Thanks, it makes things more clear. No dispute about that. In fact, for me, it was a nice revelation that every such example of lines beginning before the place where it was supposed to begin could be mapped to this. Several examples even in diksitar: Anupallavi madhyama kala line of ranganayakam, pancamatanga, and madhayma kala caranam of candrambhaja manasa, sri matrubhootam etc.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 30 Nov 2012, 12:30

keerthi, in the song 'nAyeDa vanchana, 'nalugurikai' is part of the pallavi. The anupallavi starts as 'mAyapu mAnavulanu'.

As for dayajUchuTakidi, the alternative anupallavi pATam is bhayavAraNa as mentioned in the footnote to the song in TSP's book. Brinda-Muktha sing it as bhayavAraNa.

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 17 Mar 2013, 16:41

In case this discussion is still active, I was wondering about the caranams of popular Tyagaraja songs Brova bharama (Bahudari) and Manavyala (Nalinakanti). Seems out of synch, at least the way I hear them sung.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 17 Mar 2013, 18:05

I don't think there is a problem in either song.

In brOvabhArama the charanam is:

kalashAmbudilO dayatO nama
rulakai yadi gAka gOpi
kalakai koNDa lethalEdA
karuNakara tyAgarAjuni

The dwitIyAkShara is 'la'.

In manavyAla the charanam is:

karmakANDa madAkruSHTulai bhava
gahanachArulai gAsijendaga ka
ni mAnavAvatAruDai ka
nipinchinADE naData tyAgarAju

The dwitIyAkShara is 'ma'.

The above naLinakAnti song is according to my pATam. The second line ends with ka and the third line begins with ni, similarly with the fourth line. So, no prAsa hAni is committed.

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 17 Mar 2013, 18:44

How about that! Thanks for the reply. Sounds plausible, although I've never heard either of these songs sung the way you have indicated. If I had to guess, I would have probably take a shot at the gopi belonging to the earlier line in Bahudari, but the Nalinakanti song, no way. Incidentally, the prasa seems to respect joint consonants, but don't know how these tailenders are managed (which have ra and other consonants).

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 18 Mar 2013, 22:17

Sorry to fuss about this, but please do consider arguments for the 'rma' syllable.

Examples:
Diksitar: Dharmasamvardhani ... Nirmala hrdaya ...
Tyagaraja: Dharmadyakhila ... Karmabandha ... (in Rama katha sudha)

Even for other double consonants, these people seem to have followed things to a t or a tt, as the case may be. Thanks.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 19 Mar 2013, 13:08

For double consonants or samyuktAkSharAs, the Trinity have followed the rules to a T. But there are examples otherwise too, like in the Ahiri Navavaranam of Dikshitar:

brahma maya prakAshini
nAmarUpa vimarshini
kAmakalA pradarshini
sAmarasya nidarshini

Thee are others too. Give some time.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 22 Mar 2013, 20:30

Prasa is a very interesting and complex subject with multi-cultural history. Coincidentally, just before I came across this excellent thread, I was having a discussion about prasa with a Sanskrit scholar here in San Diego. I'll share a few highlights...

1. Classical Sanskrit grammar rules clearly lay emphasis on chanda, alankara rather than prasa. Rhyme was a 'do it if possible' option in Sanskrit. It was almost like 'chitra-kavitva' (artistic pen-pictures with syllables).

2. Tamil - the other root language - stressed on 1st and 2nd syllable alliteration & rhyme.

3. Over centuries, South Indian scholars were exposed to both these schools of thought which is why composers from PD to Annamacharya have composed in various styles (1st/2nd/last syllable rhytme or sometimes without any of them).

4. OVK, who was scholarly and imaginative in several styles of Tamil as well as Sanskrit, chose to follow last syllable rhyme in at least a few of his compositions (a North Indian trend). When similar points were raised about his rhyme in some threads earlier, I had illustrated his rationale with examples.

http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15980

http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16441

There are literally hundreds of examples from his formidable body of works which illustrate various styles of literature in both these languages.

5. Trinity have followed more of the Southern grammer in their works though they occasionally also use last syllable rhyme. T has gone a step ahead in some compositions like Varada navaneetasha (Ragapanjaram) where he has rhymed both 2nd and 3rd syllable through 8 lines. In Grahabalamemi (Revagupti), he rhymes both 'gra' and 'ha' for 7 lines before resorting to (tya-) 'ga - ra ja' in the 8th line.

6. There are songs when they have not followed rules of prasa as South Indians generally look at it. So when we talk about 'them' following rules to a 'T'' (or not), we must be clear that we are setting our expectations based on the rules we know!

That said, there are also numerous spurious insertions in our literature from Valmiki to Trinity. But it takes several factors to be considered before they can be authoritatively classified as non-originals.