Lyrics+Translation: Rama Rama (Nilambari) on Tyagaraja

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 27 Nov 2012, 06:22

Requesting lyrics (translation appreciated!) for the song Sri Janaki in ragam Nilambari composed by Tyagaraja.

Thank you!

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 27 Nov 2012, 06:53

There is no song in nIlAmbari, by Tyagaraja, with the staring words shrI jAnaki.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 27 Nov 2012, 09:32

Lakshman: please bear with me as I'm not any proficient or knowledgeable about matters Carnatic music.
I recently was gifted a CD of MD Ramanathan (see https://www.celextel.com/md-ramanathan- ... -4443.html).
As you can see the fourth song is listed to be Tyagaraja's Sri Jaanaki in Nilambari ragam.
Now it is entirely possible those that produced the CD misquoted the composer or the starting words...just as they did with the third song Sankapame which I figured out with some sleuthing was the song Sankalpam ettidho manasa. Those skills however proved inadequate in resolving the identity of that fourth song and hence my query...

Would you or someone else in this forum know what that fourth song is (and of course, its lyrics/translation)?

Thank you for your help!

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 27 Nov 2012, 11:57

I suspect that, that kriti must be JaanakiiramaNa of Suddha Seemantini. This was sung very often by MDR and many other musicians of previous generations.

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 27 Nov 2012, 18:06

Is this the songs that is on the CD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK5jutuCN9E

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 27 Nov 2012, 21:14

Nope, Lakshman, it isn't.
And I also checked out the JanakiiramaNa (Suddha Seemanthini), Chembai's rendition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-neeZ_fyxg).
As far as I could tell and to my untrained ears it doesn't seem to match what I have in the CD, even allowing for MDR's deeper/slower paced singing.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 27 Nov 2012, 22:42

Lji - since many (if not most) CD and cassette covers are riddled with factual errors, it is highly possible that all three elements of the track in question are incorrect: i.e., one or all of these fields may have incorrect information - song title - 'SrI jAnakI', the rAga - nIlAmbarI, or the composer - Sri tyAgarAja.

I think Satish can vouch for the fact that the song does start with 'SrI jAnaki'. If he is also certain about the rAga being nIlAmbarI, then, maybe you could search your database for songs in nIlAmbari whose pallavi or anupallavi starts with 'SrI jAnakI'!

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 27 Nov 2012, 23:30

Yes, the song starts with Sri Janaki (as far as I can tell).
I'm afraid I far out of my depth re:confirming the ragam. I don't want to mislead or speculate beyond relaying what is outlined ("Nilambari") on the CD jacket.
If I may venture, and please don't allow this to distract or otherwise confuse, the CDs of MDR I have often contain one of his own compositions. Could this song be one he composed as well? and would that help shed some light on its lyrics/ragam/translation?

smala · Post by **smala** » 28 Nov 2012, 02:10

Just instrumental here but title says Sri Janaki and Thyagaraja! In Ishamanohari.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RB3ITtSQCs

Here's another Sri Janaki in hamsavinodini.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qU3Cry7 ... re=related

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 28 Nov 2012, 02:59

If the song starts with shrI jAnaki and it is indeed a Tryagaraja song then it must be in IshamanOhari. Maybe Satishsatish can check and respond. Here are the lyrics:

shrI jAnakI manOhara. rAgA: IshamanOhari. dEshAdi tALA.

P: shrI jAnakI manOhara shrI rAghav hari
A: nA jAlini nIvE telisi namrAnanu DauTa kEmi kAraNamu
C: nE sEyu duSkarma dEvata nI sannidhini nilva sAgenO
nI sEva nilvadElarA nIrajAkSa tyAgara sannuta

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 28 Nov 2012, 04:22

All: thank you very much for your help. Picking pointers from your responses, here's what I figured out the song to be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK5jutuCN9E which, conveniently, includes the lyrics as well which proved invaluable in my confirming it was what I had in the mentioned CD):

rAma rAma rAma rAma . rAgam: nIlAmbari. tAlam: Adi.

P: rAma rAma rAma rAma rAma kOdaNDarAmA rAma paTTAbhirAma rAma rAghavA
C1: rAma SrI jAnakI bharata lakshmaNa ripughna pavamAna suta sahita rAma rAgavA
C2: kausalyA vara tanaya SrI kauSika muni tava pAla acana garala pUjya rAma rAghavA
C3:daSaratha rAjakumAra daSa mukhAdi samhAra vishAdi krta carita rAma rAghavA
C4:guha SabarI AnjanEya kapivara SrI sughrIva ripu sOdarAdula brOcina rAma rAghavA
C5:sAkEta dhAma SrI sItA manOllAsa cAla bhEdana nipuNa rAma rAghavA
C6:tyAgarAjAdi nija dAsulu pogaDaga nAgaSayana SrI rAma rAghavA
(note: not used his mudra for this kriti)

Lakshman: yes, you were right, it was the song you mentioned in your first response. Unfortunately the CD version started with the Charanam and not with the Pallavi, and only from RShankar's response did I learn I ought to be open to considering that MDR doing that didn't mean he was singing a different song.

Now if only MDR had started with the Pallavi and not with with C1, setting aside his creative liberties,...and if only he had played the Charanams in the listed and prescribed order instead of scrambling them up...if only he had used his VaradaDasa mudra...and if only the CD manufacturer had shown more diligence...if only....we would all have been spared some effort.

Thank you once again for your help! and what a thrill it is grasp a wonderful song with its lilting melody!
p.s. Lakshman, would you have the English translation for this song, please?

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 28 Nov 2012, 12:19

This song appears to have many mistakes. It seems like its either a failed attempt at creating a bilingual manipravala or a poorly coherent Telugu-Samskritam kriti. All this could be because of poor transcription too.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 29 Nov 2012, 00:44

To my (untrained) ears the lyrics seem to match what I hear. So I doubt the transcription is in error.
As for whether it is bilingual manipravala, Telugu-Samskritam or something else, a failed or successful attempt, etc.--I confess it would be beyond me to even offer an opinion.

Someone trained by MDR says (http://www.mdramanathan.com/rasikasvoice.htm) re: this song (referred to as the "second side" below):
"The second side has another song on Rama, again sounding like an utsava sampradAya composition of Tyagaraja "rAma rAma" in nIlAmbari one of Shri M.D.Ramanathan's own compositions, deliberately composed in the Tyagaraja mode, without the Varada Dasa signature, to mislead the listener! "

ClassicalLover, since Lakshman's original response included the link to the song and I included, in my last comment, the translation I picked up elsewhere, would you mind listening to the song and clarifying where there may be errors in the translation, where you see it as "a failed attempt at creating a bilingual manipravala or a poorly coherent Telugu-Samskritam kriti"? That would help advance everyone's understanding of this song and its standing in the Carnatic repertoire.

aaaaabbbbb · Post by **aaaaabbbbb** » 29 Nov 2012, 06:52

Some corrections::

P: rAma rAma rAma rAma rAma kOdaNDarAmA rAma paTTAbhirAma rAma rAghavA
C1: rAma SrI jAnakI bharata lakshmaNa *ripughna* pavamAna suta sahita rAma rAghavA
C2: kausalyA vara tanaya SrI kauSika muni tava pAla *acana* *garala* *pUjya* rAma rAghavA..*acala*..*Khara*.. *pujya*
C3:daSaratha rAjakumAra daSa mukhAdi samhAra *vishAdi krta* carita rAma rAghavA..*viShadIkrta*
C4:guha SabarI AnjanEya kapivara SrI *sughrIva* ripu sOdarAdula brOcina rAma rAghavA..*sugreeva*
C5:sAkEta dhAma SrI sItA manOllAsa *cAla* bhEdana nipuNa rAma rAghavA..*jAla*
C6:tyAgarAjAdi nija dAsulu pogaDaga nAgaSayana SrI rAma rAghavA

*ripuGhna* is *ShatruGhna*

*acala*means stable

*Khara* is sharp

**pujyA* is the string of Sri rAmA's bow, kOdanDa

*viShadIkrta* is explicate

*ripu sOdarAdula* the brother of the enemy {rAvaNa} viBhIShaNA and others.

*jAla* is the web of deceit

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 29 Nov 2012, 23:52

aaaaabbbbb, your corrections (and their translations) increase the pleasure I experience in listening to this song. They also suggest greater joys lie ahead for me once I understand the rest. Thank you!

aaaaabbbbb · Post by **aaaaabbbbb** » 30 Nov 2012, 06:28

P: rAma rAma rAma rAma rAma kOdaNDarAmA rAma paTTAbhirAma rAma rAghavA
C1: rAma SrI jAnakI bharata lakshmaNa ripughna pavamAna suta sahita rAma rAghavA
C2: kausalyA vara tanaya SrI kauSika muni tava pAla acala Kharala pujya rAma rAghavA
C3:daSaratha rAjakumAra daSa mukhAdi samhAra viShadIkrta carita rAma rAghavA
C4:guha SabarI AnjanEya kapivara SrI sugrIva ripu sOdarAdula brOcina rAma rAghavA
C5:sAkEta dhAma SrI sItA manOllAsa jAla bhEdana nipuNa rAma rAghavA
C6:tyAgarAjAdi nija dAsulu pogaDaga nAgaSayana SrI rAma rAghavA

rAma rAma rAma rAma,rAma of the kodanDa, coronated rAma, rAma of the raGhu clan[p]
rAma, in the company of Sri jAnaki,Bharata, lakShmaNa ,Shatughna, and the son of pavamAna [AnjanEya], rAma of the raGhu clan[c1]
Blessed son of kausalya,protector of the yagna of Sri kauShika [vishvAmitra],stable, with the sharp string {of kOdanDa} rAma of the raGhu clan[c2]
The prince[son] of daSharaTha,the killer of daShamuKha [rAvaNa] and others,with an explicated history,rAma of the raGhu clan.[c3]
the protector of guha,Shabari,AnjanEya,the excellent sugrIva,the brother of the enemy, [viBhIShaNa] and others,rAma of the raGhu clan[c4]
the dweller of sAkEta, the delight of SrI sItA, the skillful splitter of the web of deceit, rAma of the raGhu clan[c5]
as the true vaishNava servants like tyAgarAja and others laud, reclining on the serpent couch, rAma of the raGhu clan[c6]

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 02 Dec 2012, 20:50

Now that we have the complete lyrics and translation could the moderator change my original request so the subject reflects the accurate title ("Rama Rama", not Sri Janaki) and composer (MDR, not Tyagaraja)? That would help future searches/forum members avoid having to churn the wheel again.

aaaaabbbbb, thank you for your time and effort in providing me the full lyrics+translation. You have helped increase, many times over, the pleasure I derive listening to MDR and this song.

aaaaabbbbb · Post by **aaaaabbbbb** » 02 Dec 2012, 22:16

My pleasure too!

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 03 Dec 2012, 10:44

satish,

Inspite of corrections by 5ab, the kriti is still suspect w.r.t. its structure.

C2 : kharala also means stiff or tight contextually here.

C3 : ripu sOdaraadula means VibhiiShaNa, sugriiva.

C6 : nijadaasulu does not mean vaishNavaites .

pogaDaga has no locus standi or its presence not justified. It is out of sync with the context as it indicates some continuous action and requires another auxiliary or main verb. The contextual syntax is spoilt and hence is poorly coherent.

If this kriti is intended to be a stuti, then no verb is required. The exclamatory address ( or sambodhana ) " hey " which is conspicuous by its absence , is to be inserted for understanding this. " Hey raama raaghava !! " is the intended line.

Hence, if pogaDaga has to be retained, either a second verb is required to justify ' pogaDaga ' or changed to another form like ' pogaDina ' to retain the syntax. Otherwise it should be removed totally.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 03 Dec 2012, 17:36

It is a big disappointment for the vaishNavaites that Thyagaraja was not a vaishNavaite but a Telugu Smaarta.

Well, since puranandara dAsaru called Siva, 'koraLali bhasma rudrAkshava dharisida parama vaishNavanu nInE', we could allow varadadAsaru (Sri MDR) to refer to Sri tyAgarAjA, a Saivaite, as a vaishNavanu, I guess...

ganape · Post by **ganape** » 03 Dec 2012, 17:41

Smartas worship both shiva and vishNu.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 03 Dec 2012, 22:01

ClassicalLover, the points you make about C2 and C3 are broadly in agreement with what aaaaabbbbb said in her/his translation.

As for the remaining items: first, you claim the structure of the song is "suspect". Since the song (check link provided by Lakshman) matches the translation (provided by aaaaabbbbb), as rendered by the song's own composer, what about the structure do you find suspect? Second, you seem to question MDR's choice of words and grammar, and dismiss them as "many mistakes, either a failed attempt at creating a bilingual manipravala or a poorly coherent Telugu-Samskritam kriti". You then argue that "pogaDaga has no locus standi, its presence not justified, it is out of sync with the context, the contextual syntax is spoilt and hence is poorly coherent" and prescribe how it is to be retained. Otherwise, you say, it should be "removed totally." Really? are you suggesting you know more about Telugu, Samskritam, manipravala, their grammar, vocabulary, etc. than the composer of the song? on what basis should I or anyone pay attention to you when we can readily confirm MDR's composition, grammar, choice of words, and own rendition (via that link Lakshman attached)?

You say: "nijadaasulu does not mean vaishNavaites." Since you haven't clarified what you say it means, can I ask you to present your alternate? In its absence, I'm afraid all I'm left with is the feeling that you disagree but don't have an alternate, more acceptable, superior translation of that word.

The song, rendered by its composer, is available for you to review and confirm those words are used as in the translation provided by aaaaabbbbb. If you disagree about the presence of the words "pogaDaga" or "nijadaasulu" etc in the composition, present the (alternate) words (and their meanings) you hear instead. Likewise, present your argument whether this kriti is intended to be a stuti or not (and in the process I might even be educated about the latter!) In their absence all I'm left with is the feeling you have a strong reaction...but unable to present an alternate, superior, more accurate version.

As for whether the use of those words spoils the contextual syntax, renders it poorly coherent, has no locus standi, unjustified presence...requiring they be removed totally...I'm afraid I find your comments and the tone entirely belligerent, hostile...they compel a newbie like me to recoil and seek safety elsewhere. I'm most reminded of those who argue that pi (22/7) has no locus standi in the beautiful world of math as it is poorly coherent, spoils the elegance of math, should be removed totally, makes life difficult for middle-schoolers learning mathematics.

Lastly, I am choosing not to respond to your superfluous remark about the "lament of vaishNavites" re: Tyagaraja. Really? in this day and age? Suffice it to say I find it polluting, corrosive, and request you retract it promptly or take yourself elsewhere as neither has a place in this thread I started.

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 05 Dec 2012, 12:24

" verri prElaapanalu chesi, lessa palikitivani yanukoni duskiilu tiiyuchuNtivi kadaraa, Dimbhaka !! neevamaayakuDavanuchu , arbhakuni maaTalu hechchuchEyavaladani yenchi viDuchuchuNTini. ainanu neevu naa maanasahanamulaku pariikSha jEsinayeDala, nee mukkunu tempi, kaaramu jalli, doNDa panDu beTTeda - kaachukonumu suma !! "

It is your reaction which reeks of hostility and arrogance and also definitely unjustified and unwarranted.
All my previous posts were based entirely on the lyrics & corrections provided by you and 5ab resply. I could not listen to the audio then. I don't believe in such transcriptions so much either - especially the hotch-potch ones by untrained ears.

How can you write so much furiously, being on the wrong side ? You are in the glass house, so dont throw stones. How can you claim your transcription was error-free when you don't have trained ears ? You contradict yourself. Again, when you can find fault with MDR for not using the pen name and not singing the charaNas in order, why can't I question the lyrics ? That too erroneous ones ? When lyrics of the Trinity are being questioned, why do you think MDR should be infallible ?

I don't deny your right to continue to be incorrigible , arrogant and ignorant but definitely you have no right to tell me to go off the thread - you own neither the forum nor the thread. Neither do you own nor are you the custodian of MDR and his legacy.

As for the lyrics, I was very much right on my points , after listening to the audio which is quite clear . I look at it that 5ab offered suggestions in the name of corrections as per the available sources and tried to justify them with some meaning. I don't blame 5ab for it, but better attention could have been given maybe. Nobody is infallible.

C2 : It is not ' acala kharala pujya ' but the audio clearly says it is " rasanagaraLapuujya " which means one who is worshipped by Shiva.

C4 & C5 were not sung in the youtube audio. jaalabhedananipuNa is one single compound word. It can have more than one meaning philosophically, depending on the context, like - destroyer of the cycle of birth and death giving salvation, remover of all accumulated sins, etc..

C6 : nija daasulu means not vaishnavaite , but " one's devotees " which is not necessarily vaishnavaite. At best, for a layman, as an alternative, it would mean a true devotee, for simpler understanding.

I was also right about the use of ' pogaDaga ' . My suspicions were true. The audio is quite clear and it says " pogaDina ".

Mr. Newbie ! If you think you were so logical ( which you are not definitely ), why didn't you ask about the usage of ' naagasayana ' ? When did raama sleep on the snake-bed ?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 07 Dec 2012, 01:31

I do not want to get in the middle of an intellectual debate on lyrics, translation and transcription etc. but just to make this point.

People ( satish and cla2sica2lover) take it easy. We should be able to conduct this without going off on each other. ( though we all understand that some goodnatured ribbing and put downs of the opponent in a debate about their ignorance etc. is a time honored Indian debate tradition, but not like this

)

cla2sica2lover: Hope you understand that your off hand comment on that vaishnavaites thing is unnecessary to make your point. Not that I am accusing you for a casual slip up or misreading of how that will be interpreted, that happens often, but it will be a nice gesture to acknowledge that in this thread and move on. We have gotten a few complaints from people who are deeply hurt by such statements. ( I do not want that to be the topic of conversation here but just to provide that feedback. For any further conversation about this side non-topic, though not necessary, please use email to the mods or admins or with each other )

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 08 Dec 2012, 06:26

Vasanthakokilam, I presume you are a moderator/admin and welcome your comment. As must be clear to you and most others who contributed to this thread and those who read it (there seem to be a lot more):

a) I made clear I'm no expert in matters Carnatic.
b) I also made clear I found the link--which was what Lakshman sent in the first place--and the lyrics online. I didn't transcribe them, I didn't claim the transcription was mine, I didn't claim they were error-free, I didn't find fault with MDR for not using the pen name or singing the Charanams in order, I didn't claim to be the custodian of MDR's legacy, etc. My two or three comments in this thread should establish all of that in a convincing, unambiguous manner.
c) For one to assert I did all that (i.e., I claimed the transcription was mine, error-free, faulted MDR...), in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise, speaks volumes of their ability to read/digest and respond (or otherwise participate in these forums) in a mature, responsible manner. Enough said about that.

All that is irrelevant to the core of what prompted me to respond as I did. Like many I could have chosen to let that snide, gratuitous disparaging remark about vaishNavites go by. You suggest I "take it easy". Did you mean I not react to that vile and entirely unnecessary provocation? I'm sorry, I can't do that. If I were to "take it easy" I see myself as becoming complicit in a bad situation, granting license through passivity or silence for an abuser to continue their abusive and vile behavior. Aren't there enough already doing that? and how has that led to cessation of that abusive and unacceptable behavior? relief for those at the receiving end? Experience has taught me these these things only get worse over time, they never improve...UNLESS...one/some/many stand up and call to account that behavior that is unacceptable.
In my response I asked ClassicalLover to present alternatives to words/translations he disagreed with so we can all understand where he is coming from...and, re: his vile provocation, firmly requested he retract it or take himself elsewhere (and not hijack this thread with his antics).

For lack of time, and this is meant in a lighter tone, ClassicalLover's comment about the lament of vaishNavites reminded me also of the Sunni Wahabi mullahs sitting in some seminary or madrasa...issuing screeds and fatwas about the heretical Shias (and kafirs and so on), prescribing what has locus standi and what doesn't, what has unjustified presence and needs to be extirpated totally! I leave it to the reader, as a home work exercise, whether, in the face of these fatwas, vaishNavites qualify to be the eqiuvalent of Shias or Ahmadiyas or Bohras or just plain kafirs

[vaishNavites, others: please don't take me to task for that comparison. As you can see, I mean well

To close it out, the moderators/admins can step in to clarify if they mean to tolerate someone deliberately and gratuitously putting down an entire community as we saw with ClassicalLover's comment. I'd like to think they, as I do too, would not like to condone such behavior in this forum devoted, above all, to music. Doesn't Indian society already suffer from (more than) enough divisions, factions, and sects...and paid (and continues to pay) a steep price for that...for us to allow that ** (edited -moderator) in this day and age to enter this forum and its members?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 08 Dec 2012, 06:42

satishsatish, I specifically mentioned not to continue this here since i am interested in cleaning it up and not prolonging it.

I did not expect you to get on this high pedestal position and preach to us in response to my post. We know what you are talking about and are indeed sensitive to all those things. I was only expecting to deal with any adverse remark from classicalLover for chiding him and not from you.

Let me just make some brief and straightforward points and let us stop it here.

When I said 'take it easy', I did mean you as well, not for your taking exception to the vaishNavites comment which is fair but to your point by point response
in the previous posts in a disproportionately aggressive manner to those who are trying to help you with your question in their own manner.
If you do not like their tone, take what they offered for what it is worth and move on. If you choose to be belligerent, then expect some heat. Do not play coy that you do not share any blame in escalating things. I take the blame for not clearly spelling out all these things before.

I handled separately the vaishNavites comment with classicalLover in the second paragraph.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 08 Dec 2012, 08:11

>your point by point response in the previous posts in a disproportionately aggressive manner to those who are trying to help you with your question in their own manner.

Who are you including in "those who are trying to help" that I was "disproportionately aggressive" toward, vasanthakokilum?
As I see it, there were a handful that tried to help--Lakshman, rshankar, smala, aaaaabbbbb--and my responses should make plenty clear I was appreciative of their help, took their tips and pointers and followed up on them, and credited them as well. If it was classicallover's comments, I let pass his first for the very reasons you quote--it seemed to be "in his own manner"--but are you suggesting I remain quiet when the penultimate too--"in his own manner"--crossed boundaries of decency? My response was he retract it or go elsewhere. Which part of it was "disproportionately aggressive"?

I don't own or deserve any "high pedestal position"...I however want to make it clear I am not going to sit back and "take it easy" in the face of noxious nonsense of the kind you allude to and I handle more directly. And I'm all for handling things assertively, escalating and with heat and belligerence if necessary too. As this response must make clear as well. As I see it (and let others speak if they may), no, your handling of the vaishNavite issue was a gloss, a wash. Ask those that were offended whether your hint of a suggestion of a request--that classicallover say something in regard to his original disparaging remark-- reassured them any.

Lastly, if you had written me directly I'd have responded to you directly. By castigating me in public, you chose to prolong it (unless you now choose to shut me out for responding as I have). If you are sincere in your desire to clean it up then castigate the person that engaged in that gratuitous and disparaging comment slamming an entire community, not me when I stood up--for no personal gain--to protest. And, oh, if you are to do it, can you consider doing it without having to dance around the subject, allowing all sorts of escapes for the instigator to choose from?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 08 Dec 2012, 10:59

satish: I do not have the time or enthusiasm to argue all this point by point. I also do not desire to argue against your righteous indignation, lest I be labeled anti-righteous.

Let me make a few brief points.

1) Refer to my post #24. I clearly expressed my preference to take it to email. You decided to take me on in this thread. Now you are complaining about castigating you in public. When I said that in post #24, there is a good reason for it. Main one was to avoid this kind of an ugly escalation. I am not your problem and neither are you mine. And now look where we are.

2) I already explained that my 'advice' to you to take it easy is not about you bringing up the Vaishnavite matter but your tone in arguing about the discussion on the lyrics. It is perfectly reasonable for you to ask me for an example. The ones i had in mind were things like "Really? are you suggesting you know more about Telugu, Samskritam, manipravala, their grammar, vocabulary, etc. than the composer of the song? on what basis should I or anyone pay attention to you". If you do not want to take my advice, fine, but I stand by it. That is a definite slippery slope to get in to the muddy waters. The defense usually is with the thought 'I did not start it' but pretty soon you are neck deep in mud. There are other ways of holding an intellectual debate on CM lyrics and expressing your disagreements even if the other party is rough. Moreover, you started this thread to learn and you should be prepared to learn from all sorts of people not just the ones who are nice. That was my main point.

3) I already took the blame in not explaining all this fully. I fully understand why you mistook my statement to be about the Vaishnavite issue and that is why I chose to explain all that in my reply to your post. ( though I would have much preferred your graciousness in giving me the benefit of the doubt and ask me and wait for an answer instead of asking and flying off the handle in the same breath )

4) I am of course annoyed by classicallover's extra curricular statements in this thread and elsewhere. Otherwise I would not have butted in here.

5) Do not preach to me on how to do my job.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 08 Dec 2012, 21:30

vasanthakokilam: yes, you did express your preference for private email over this public exchange. Unfortunately to this minute I haven't seen you take the lead on that. Under those circumstances I am left with no option but to defend myself in the public forum where classicallover, without basis, made false claims against me and you, on your part, reprimanded me (unfairly and inappropriately, as I see it).

I stand by, with hard-edged conviction, my questioning classicallover's claims, extraordinary as they seem, about the grammar, structure, vocabulary, etc. of the song and competency of the composer. #13 should confirm for you and others my tone was polite and I was curious to see what he saw that others were missing. #19, his response, was inadequate and made further unsubstantiated claims that, to me, reeked of the Indian (or Carnatic?) equivalent of fatwas. Worse, engaged in polemics against entire communities. As I see it, I asked him to back those claims and requested he retract his gratuitous claims or go elsewhere. To his response, which by the way made no attempt to redress the hurts and wounds he inflicted on vaishNavites, my own #25 makes clear what I think of classicallover's accusations re: my (lack of) knowledge, competency over language and grammar, etc.
None of any of this, as I see it, was "disproportionately aggressive" on my part. Your response suggests, as I intuited in the first place, this wasn't the first or second instance of classicallover's diatribes. So what exactly has your "take it easy" achieved, beside condoning his conduct and providing an understanding, even nurturing environment for it?

Tell me again, what then explains your claim I was "disproportionately aggressive"? And, again, who were the "those" you referred to? and where indeed did I "ask and fly off the handle in the same breath"? You come across as the school principal who, as is often customary, reprimands one who stood up to a bully (who of course is allowed to continue "in his own manner") for "escalating it". I refuse to be complicit in that, even when I was not the target of the bully (as the record in this thread should prove unequivocally).

No, I am not preaching to you on how to do your job. Far from it. You misunderstood. Come to think of it, I'd suggest you do your job and stop your preaching me about being "prepared to learn from all sorts of people", "taking it easy", "getting off the high pedestal position", asking me to be complicit in the abuses of those who behave "in their own manner" and so on. A textbook example of projection, isn't it?

This shall be my last on this thread which, for reasons historical and hysterical, has strayed far from my simple request for the lyrics and translation to a song that lodged in my mind as few have in many years. Neither classicallover's behavior "in his own manner" nor your (mis)handling of it shall dilute the pleasures I derive from the song, the help I obtained from those named earlier in enabling me to understand it better. Kudos to them, once again.
Enough said.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 08 Dec 2012, 23:23

Fair enough Satish. Right now, as I see it, you are in this mode of "I am the 100% good guy and others are 100% to blame for this.". I can understand why you feel that way. BTW, in case you feel I am on your case disproportionately instead of the bully, yes it does feel that way but all these subsequent ugliness were responses to your replies. My one and only admonition to you originally is 'to take it easy' and I still stand by it. I can take everything else back by unwinding all these subsequent ugliness between you and I. On the original matters, relatively speaking, you are the good guy compared to classicallover in terms of who instigated things. Yes my 'dealings' with you do look out of balance and I am not happy about that either. But It pains me that I was not able to communicate my original kernel of useful feedback to you as a neutral third party ( at least then, and even now, even if you do not perceive it that way ). Now we are in the midst of this escalated brawl where any such reflection is almost next to impossible. My only 'advice' to you is, later on, after some time passes, reflect and see if you as the 'offended' party could have handled the ( non vaishnavite ) situation better and understand what I meant by 'take it easy'.

If I can point to one thing for this escalation of your 'fight' with me, I think it is due to one huge misunderstanding on your part. When I asked you to take it easy, you assumed that I am condoning classicallover. Come on! Get over it. That is absolutely not true. And I can not take responsibility for such conflations on your part.

I grant you that it does feel like I am the principal who disciplines both parties in a school yard fight much to the displeasure and angst of both parties ( though here classicallover, having irked you with his tone in the first place to set you off, is probably sitting on the sidelines amused by all this ). That is what happens when another person gets in the middle. Unpredictable things happen. The moderator is not just going to look at the thread in the isolated context of a specific complaint. They will look at the full picture and spread around the admonitions as they see it. I heard a judge recently advicing lawyers of two mega corporations to think really hard about bringing the case to a Jury trial. It may not go your way and do not cry foul later about the unfair verdict by the jury and those good for nothing idiots do not understand the complexity of the issues etc.

I do like what you say in the last part your above post since that is what matters in the end. Cherish it, enjoy it and be happy.

Best wishes.

smala · Post by **smala** » 11 Dec 2012, 10:46

I think I agree with Satish on many points. It's high time for mods to be fair in gunning down one person, the wrong person.

The following is an unnecessary, callous, patronizing statement...

"....you are in this mode of "I am the 100% good guy and others are 100% to blame for this. I can understand why you feel that way."

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 11 Dec 2012, 22:57

I can say a lot of things in reply but let me not in the interest of not continuing this thread in that direction. Every extra word I utter, I fear, is going to extend this thread unnecessarily.

But I have to mention this in general. Everything ( I mean 100% ) I wanted to say to Satish was in the second paragraph of my post #24, which was in equal proportion to him and classicallover on debating about the lyrics ( and not the vaishnavite matter, to be sure ). Rest of it between him and I are just unfortunate collateral conversational damages, just as it happens in real life conversations. That is not part of any specific moderating activity. Satish, in case you are still reading this thread, I do not carry any ill-will and hope you do not either. Peace.

The main reason I inserted myself into this thread in the first place is to deal with a complaint we received. The third para of my post #24 was for that purpose as a 'hearing'. That is how I deal with these things as a first step, even if it sounds lukewarm, setting aside my own personal feelings about it.

smala · Post by **smala** » 12 Dec 2012, 03:59

The problem is with having an attitude that does not command respect even if he/she claims to know something regarding lyrics, language, syntax, context, so on.

Right from the beginning the very respectable Lakshmanji was questioned and put-down even as he performs a selfless service to rasikas seeking info on compositions and lyrics. Then Smt Savitri was ridiculed on her offerings of corrections and interpretations of lyrics gleaned from the net or available from personal books or from Lakshmanji's sources. I recall stepping in for her defense at some point when she was being hounded. Then came some sneering at Keerthi at which point Skris the admin stepped in to say to that Keerthi was a scholar and a highly respected member at rasikas and to layoff.

Post #22 from Satish clearly asked for clarifications on points, while showing some indignation regarding this afore-mentioned attitude that seems to seep in every time the poster posts. Calling Satish a "newbie", when it was he who started this thread, posting in earnestness to glean info was hardly a wise call. Neither was turning the tables on him with counter off-the-wall attacks, proclaiming he did not own the thread or MDR's legacy, etc., justifiable, in the reply post. The allusion to "untrained" ears would include Lakshmanji as well, even with his years of devoted listening and interest in music, since 'transcriptions" have become suspect and maligned. It is rather the newbie that has failed to see Lakshmanji open to correction and humble too.

Has anyone noticed a recent problem that has crept into Sahitya ?
ALL lyrics, when posted, are deeply suspect, no matter who corrects them, save those corrections made by one. No doubt sahitya may have some flaws, but who is the single authority on the "correctness" and correction?

classicallover · Post by **classicallover** » 13 Dec 2012, 14:25

A simple, plain and innocent statement was first blown out of proportion by the OP who kept on wailing that offense was intended. How this statement is to be interpreted and to what extent is dependent on the level of maturity or the lack of it. Look at the response from rshankar for example.

And then the OP made blasphemous statements to justify the blowing up.

My factual statement fades and pales in front of the unholy / blasphemous comparisons made by the OP by dragging another community into this issue unnecessarily – trying to compare or equate Vaishnavaites with Shia Muslims and further upgraded this into a murky controversy. This is definitely gross insult. And he claims to defend and mean well for the Vaishnavaites with this comparison. Putting a smiley next to an insult does not always reduce the intensity or alter the tone.

Lo & behold my dear Vaishnavaites ! Here is your new Messiah & defender who will not hesitate to stoop down to dirty comparisons in the name of protecting your honour and interests.

Will the OP agree and keep quiet if I say that his name ‘ satishsatish ’ looks like that of the politician from Afghanistan ( i.i.r.c. ) called Abdullah Abdullah ? And that is why he is constantly reminded of muslims ? If any cleric sees his posting, he may blast the OP’s head !!

If my statement does not “ dilute the pleasure derived from listening to the song” , then why go on wailing about it ? Especially when that is what Vasko would have meant when he was told to take it easy ? Late wisdom maybe !!

While I can appreciate the patience shown by Vasko, I am also amused by the extra amount of energy spent to assuage & accommodate, cajole & convince, pacify & persuade and bending backwards to the OP to shut it all up.

As always , smala steps into an issue which is dead, just like a vulture swoops on carcasses. The only difference is the vulture cleans up the mess while smala adds more stench to let the rot spread around. And then cry foul !! The intent of my statements would promptly be modified and be branded as “ smala*** ” . smala has that flair for generating an unwanted fire or demonstrating that a wintry mist is actually smoke, which was caused by a fire. smala’s thinking is as quixotic as the OP’s. Have a close look at the posts she made in those threads that she mentioned for evidence to this effect, apart from this one.

I thought of not reacting further in this thread , forgiving the OP for whatever he was worth and kept quiet. But smala won't let it be so. This reaction of mine is more ( ~ 65% ) in response to smala’s and the rest to the OP.

There seems to be a certain type of racism or a high order of unnecessary ego for a few who form a coterie of sorts in this forum, wherein, those few appreciate and welcome themselves while the rest have to be satisfied with third class citizenship. Mediocrity is immediately accepted and welcomed while truth, even in flashes, is watched with great suspicion and then belittled.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 13 Dec 2012, 20:01

To shake off the heat and cool ourselves, let us travel back in time to the 1940s and the cool waters of the Tunga river in Sringeri.
In the 1940s, after one of his numerous antarmukha periods, Sri Chandrashekara Bharatii Mahaswami was giving darshan to devotees. A close devotee who knew the Swami for many years made bold to ask him, “Swami, the Vaishnavites say that the Lord is there in all His glory and that the sAdhakA can only surrender to him, thus merging with the Lord but retaining his identity. We, as Advaitins, say that the individual soul totally merges with Brahman thereby totally destroying the ego and that we become Brahman Itself. Therefore aren’t we as Advaitins superior to the Vaishnavites?”
The Swami asked,” Oh, you feel that we Advaitins are superior to the Vaishnavites?
“Yes”, said the devotee.
“Leave alone the philosophy for the moment. Tell me, are you a bhakta, do you go to temples?”
“Of course Swami, I regularly visit temples.”
“To what temples do you go?”
“I worship Siva, Vishnu, Ambal, Ganapati, Subramanya”.
The Swami asked, “Also Surya and the other grahas, right”?
“Yes”.
“Who do the Vaishnavites worship?”
“Here also they are narrow minded. They say only Vishnu is Paramapurusha and they don’t worship any other God.”
“Oho, you worship many Gods and they worship only the One Vishnu. Tell me, aren’t they better Advaitins than you, because they focus only on One God, whereas you go from temple to temple and seem to worship a hundred gods”. Tell me, who is the better Advaitin?”
The devotee, tears streaming from his eyes, fell at the Mahapurusha’s feet and craved his pardon.
The Swami said with a benign smile, “Look, there is no point in criticising others. They are doing their dharma. You do yours. Everyone, whether a Smartha, Vaishnavite or a Madhva has faith in the Upanishads. Take any one truth in the Upanishads and practise it diligently. You will attain your goal. All paths lead to that one goal. Stop talking ill of others or of their philosophy.”

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 13 Dec 2012, 21:19

Enough! Everybody has had their say.
I'll permit any more comments strictly on the topic of discussion i.e., the lyric and translation and related.
Vaishnavite discussions must be in a separate thread at the members'
forum if you want to start one. Personal bickerings should be through email.

Thank you for your cooperation!

smala · Post by **smala** » 14 Dec 2012, 01:59

Post your translations to this.

"verri prElaapanalu chesi, lessa palikitivani yanukoni duskiilu tiiyuchuNtivi kadaraa, Dimbhaka !! neevamaayakuDavanuchu , arbhakuni maaTalu hechchuchEyavaladani yenchi viDuchuchuNTini. ainanu neevu naa maanasahanamulaku pariikSha jEsinayeDala, nee mukkunu tempi, kaaramu jalli, doNDa panDu beTTeda - kaachukonumu suma !! "

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 14 Dec 2012, 02:41

(edited by moderator)
You are advised to focus on the topic and not to prolong verbal duelling!
Meanwhile...I'm still waiting...and let it not escape attention of anyone here...we are still awaiting a response from Classical***** to back his claims made earlier in this thread, notably:

a) what were "the *many* mistakes" contained in the lyrics posted (from elsewhere) in my #11;
b) did MDR attempt to create a bilingual manipravala? a Telugu-Samskritam kriti?
c) did MDR pass in his attempt? did he fail? was his result sensible or poorly coherent? and what is the credibility of the person who serves as judge?
d) what is still suspect w.r.t. the structure of this kriti?
e) is this kriti a stuti?

And, yes, I'd welcome the comments of others--based on what I've seen they seem as informed and certainly far more coherent and capable of participating in civilized discourse in these forums than Classical***--to share their thoughts on the above...as they would go a long way to exposing charlatans and the placing of boundaries around their conduct.

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 14 Dec 2012, 03:24

When the moderators allow ClassicalLover to play with smala's handle and term it “ smalafide ” and to mock at my satishsatish handle, why are they blocking me from responding in kind and making his be the more apt ClassicalLoser that he is? Does it not smack of bias on the part of mderators in favor of ClassicalLover? and more of allowing a bully to have his way "in his own manner" while blocking, admonishing those who speak up?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Dec 2012, 06:38

We take no sides. Nor are we partial to anybody. We just don't want a "streetfight" or calling names here at the Forum. If you are genuinely seeking information then this thread will survive provided there are folks interested in sharing their expertise with you. More antics, I have no choice but to lock this thread. You'll be the loser!

satishsatish · Post by **satishsatish** » 14 Dec 2012, 07:11

I initiated this thread with a genuine desire to learn more about the song. Several, already credited and acknowledged, contributed in ways positive and productive. The record will confirm all that.
The record will also confirm the antics, "calling names" etc. originated with ClassicalLover (oh, I so prefer the more appropriate Loser but shall defer it for future use should the need arise). The examples of that name-calling extend out to others that have spoken up as well.

What then explains the silence of the moderators--be it vasantakokilam or cmlover--to this day and minute in the face of those provocations and abuses (and name calling) from ClassicalLover?
As must be clear by now to all, this is not the first or only time ClassicalLover has crossed boundaries. They occurred in the past, they continue in this thread, and they are likely to occur again (and the complicity of the moderators only makes it more likely, the very complicity that ClassicalLover appreciates as "patience"). Why this penchant to admonish, reprimand, edit what I have to say while remaining mum on ClassicalLover's innumerable past and current transgressions?

And if you can't do something about it, and your claims of impartiality seem hollow in the face of the evidence, then don't get in my way of handling these bullies.
If on the other hand you continue to grant them room to behave, unchecked, "in their normal manner" whereby they can issue fatwas, intimidate others that have contributed (and for far longer) here the loss impacts many, not just me, and let there be no doubt it would be owing to your tacit complicity with a bully.

varsha · Post by **varsha** » 14 Dec 2012, 07:52

I initiated this thread with a genuine desire to learn more about the song.

hence you must be the principal stake holder in continuing to go after that objective. no point in harassing the admin . They do have to give more weightage to the givers ( classicallover is one of them - it takes pains to compose and write what he writes ) than the seekers . It is more difficult for the mods when the givers cross the lines ( line itself being a blurry issue ) .
Let this be the touchstone then in dealings . People who seek should give a little more lenience to givers .
A lot of what happens in this forum can be labelled vanity fair . Let us drink at the few good fountains without muddying the waters .
Please !!!!
All of us are intelligent . each in our own way .
Tasteful . each ....
Articulate . each ...
Wanting to be loved and appreciated . each ....
Cheers

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 15 Dec 2012, 07:58

Thanks everyone, this thread has gone past its purpose, and I propose to lock it to avoid it going any further down the path of acrimony.

Classicallover, you started it by your unwarranted remark on vaishnavites, and satishsatish thought he had to reply to each remark of yours (although he professed to not know the topic). Please let us put this to an end now. Vasantakokilam only tried to help bring order, that's that.