Anoop, I do not have a clue about any "resolution" of the 'disciple of bhaskara raya' issue and whether it is pertinent at all to the topic.

On the other two issues which are indeed pertinent to the issue at hand..

post #74 in this thread ( viewtopic.php?p=196942#p196942 ), Sri. Ravikiran sheds some light on the Sankeernam issue.

On the Jayanthasri class of issues, what you suggest is possible but my take is, if that is so Sri. Ravi Kiran would have stated it - that they have been re-tuned - it is a much simpler explanation. But the point made by Sri. Ravikiran is, if one does not bring in the mythology associated with Narada and Tyagaraja as the primary evidence, then it is entirely possible that the same information was available a hundred years earlier, either the same treatise or through another one or that those ragas were prevalent then whether one can trace it to a specific treatise or not. The idea is treatises typically do not contain 'inventions or discoveries' , only descriptions and codifications of what is prevalent at that time and by extension a century or so before that time. We can readily see that in the SSP and the great lengths the author goes to disclaim that he is simply writing down what had been passed on down to him over hundreds of years.

Dear sirs, we have two extra-ordinary prodigies, one sat on the lap of great Sri Shemmangudi identifying ragas at very young age, and other sat on the laps of two aasthana vidwans, at equally tender age and improvising what they sang ! . It is high time that more and more niceties of music are brought out on this blog, rather than arguing on only one aspect, sharing their expertise with us, so that empty pots may some what fill at some time !

reg post122.
Scratching History beyond a point/limit is akin to velai illatha ambattan poonai mudiyai sarachan What difference does it make if OVK lived in the 1st century or the 22nd century"
The popular saying quoted in post122 and promptly seconded in the next one is not pertinent to the present discussion. the saying is meant to discourage laymen from indulging in futile PHYSICAL activity in which the outcome is not going to be of any use to anybody.It does not apply to inquisitive INTELLECTUAL pursuits which are the basis of any research. Obviously it does not advocate throwing History, Archeology, Anthropology,Paleontology etc..( which are essentially concerned with dating )to the dustbin.
Neither the initiator of this thread nor the dozen contributors including the authors of the posts 122 and 123 neither the moderators nor the 2700 viewers can be called "Velayatha ----" Similarly the study of this genius tamil composer and one of the greatest of all times like the trinity cannot be compared to the job of shaving off a cat.

Respected rasikas,

I feel the bhaskara raya issue is a real serious one coz if its false we should stop associating these names asap. Then the remaining questions still prevail with close association with the topic of interest as Vid. Ravikiran himself have said Bhaskaraya Raya is the only option considering OVK's period. Doesn't that question OVK's period?

Regarding sankirna, even in the post mentioned there are only back questions instead of an exact answer on the treatise or period. The question assumes significance when we note that none among trinity or their predecessors have mentioned this.

The motivation for my third point was the comment by Vid. Ravikiran in which he says that almost all the compositions are passed down thru oral tradition and for many compositions only the lyrics are available. Hence it is highly plausible that some of the compositions lost its actual tune, lyrics or even the talam. Dhoshas could've crept in, especially when handled by non musicians/performers (ref. vid. Ravikiran's post).

Regards
Anoop.

Hi Anoop,



Where? I merely said he is reputed to have had initiation from BR and shared the corraboration that I had regarding that. I also told that other experts could debate about this, as I was not one. Btw, BR lived for close to 100 years almost till mid 1770s, if I remember right. Does anyone have an exhaustive list of all the students he trained or did not? I spoke to experts and posted several counter-points to whatever had been claimed.

The brillaince of OVK's navavaranams are beyond question, irrespective of which school he came from.



No! Only conclusive answers with references.



Same for Trinity and almost any major composer of that period. Very few original notations are available for anyone of them. Please refer to the Value of OVK thread.



Again, same holds good for many pieces of T, SS etc. I'd say, much more since those who 'handled' the songs were themselves good composers or musicians with imagination. Sangatis have been added, modified, subtracted or mutilated over centuries. Well known songs with modified tunes include Vasudevayani (Kalyani), Padaliga teera (Reetigowla), Chetulara (now in Bhairavi) etc. Many of SS's Mishra Chapu krtis like Tarunam idamma (Gowlipantu) have now become Adi (1 kalai). We have about 250 krtis of MD which are not even in SSP. How come the same people who are talking about OVK are silent about the same issues with respect to others?!



Typos are a reality in any transcription. I have consulted scholars to get these clarified as and when necessary.

As for other types of 'dosha', I have proved with conclusive examples and counter-examples that similar characteristics are seen in MD, T etc. I have also established that it is absolutely wrong to even label them as doshas. If we start quoting authorities out of context from even the greatest treatise, most developments will be categorised as doshas. That is the surest way to take music backward.

Bottom line: 1. Reading books is commendable. But the interpretation of these must be based on a combo of immense practical knowledge and experience, deep analysis, objectivity and common sense.
2. Before offering opinions about great people, one must spend years in getting acquainted with their works. If one is also a musician, one must learn at least a few dozen works before one can even understand their brilliance.

To this end, I am absolutely open to offering any assistance or even inputs to anyone genuinely interested in conducting objective studies about OVK, including Mr Shastri.

Dear sirs, i feel both sri Anoop007 and sri RK are right in their own views. Its very hard to visualize the actual facts. Eg., Just because we are living in the same period with Dr Balamurali or say Sri MSG, one should not conclude that today's Vidhwan, by his own virtue, should not be analysed or concluded that he is influenced by the above cited greats. At best, in the absence of real proof, may be classified as " Possible" , which again is not conclusive. Anyway, analyst on this knows better than anyone . RK's offer is magnanimous and interesting. Only it is to be accepted.

I have been following this thread of discussion and I am an independent observer. I see that Shri Ravikiran has patiently answered all the questions raised by the initiator of this thread and conclusively proved that his assumptions about OVKs period are just that - his own assumptions with no scientific basis. I am yet to see any logical arguments by the initator of this thread for any of the replies given by Shri Ravikiran.

In any debate, if one of the sides is unable to provide any valid counter points raised by the other side, they have to graciously accept that they are wrong and have incorrectly arrived at their conclusions. At least that is the point of a healthy debate. Will the initiator of this thread oblige?

Oh, come on. Cant you take things in a lighter vein and read with referenec to the context ??????
The very reason I attached a smiley in that statement !!

Shri RK has given 'conclusive answers with references' to all the questions raised.
As CM rasikas, let us move ahead and continue enjoying the beautiful creations of OVK, post-OVK trinity and many others.

dear sirs, Pratyaksham bala is telling parokshamly confirming about the time of Sri OVK. Somewhere along the lines he forgot to tell us to enjoy the OVK's compositions created by 20th and 21st century vaggeyakaras !

Now that all the questions have been answered by Shri RK conclusively, let us move ahead.

Absolutely no case for a "post-trinity" OVK

The following "analysis" is quite unnecessary given the more erudite and detailed internal evidence cited by Shri Chitravina Ravikiran in various books, lectures and online discussions including this one. Still, for what it is worth, this is a hasty and haphazard attempt to debunk the case for a "post-trinity" OVK purely based on common sense. All of the dates I cite below are from memory (dates are my mental placeholders to place people in historical context) and may have slight errors that are irrelevant to the points made.

Tyagaraja died in 1847, MD in 1835 and SS around the same time.

So let us say the great "post-trinity" musical genius OVK lived between 1820 and 1890. Or choose something similar, say 1830 to 1900. Keep in mind that the later the date, the weaker the case as will be shown hereinunder.

First, think how unlikely that somebody who lived in this highly scrutinized period of extensive intercity travel and communication would go unnoticed. This was the Victorian era when the British empire and civil administration was firmly established in the Madras presidency.

My late father in law's grandfather Shri Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar lived between 1866 and 1943 and wrote extensively on the musicians and harikatha exponents of his time. Given that the Bhagavathar was a leading Harikatha exponent of his times who conducted an annual Radha-Kalyana Uthsavams, it is absolutely inconceivable that he would not have met or talked about a contemporary who was not only an extraordinary musical genius but also a great Krishna bhakta. That too from an adjoining village which was part of an exclusive group of villages (Melattur, Sulamangalam, Oothukadu, etc..) known for the Bhagavatha mela. In fact, OVK would have been the presiding "chief" guest in the Sulamangalam Radha Kalyanams and the stories would be part of the family folklore. Oh, how I wish it were so!

The fact is, Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar never mentioned OVK anywhere in his writings. As he did not Annamacharya or Arunagirinathar. Because OVK was not a contemporary or connected in anyway with his contemporaries (as in Tyagaraja was connected by way of his numerous shishyas and shishya parampara who where the Bhagavathar's conemporaries).

The post trinity period is very very close to ours and many people born in that period come tantalizingly close to our own generation. Patnam Subramania Iyer lived between 1845 and 1902 while Maha Vaidyanatha Sivan between 1844 and 1893. All this overlaps with people who lived within a hair's breadth of our own times, such as Tiger Varadachari (1875-1950), Mysore Vasudevachar (1861-1960), Harikesanallur Muthiah Bhagavathar (1870-1945). All these people had close contact with the great generation of musicians born between 1890 (ARI) and say 1916 (Alathur Sivasubramania Iyer) in many cases as their gurus. And yet none of that great generation - ARI, Musiri, Maharajapuram, Alathur, SSI, MMI - ever talked about their "gurunathars" meeting thsi great composer OVK. And yet many of them sang OVK's more well-known compositions, certainly the Tamil ones. It is inconceivable that not one of them would have mentioned something about this extraordinary vaggeyakara in some context.

The history of late 19th century and early 20th century Carnatic music is well documented and analyzed. Veena Dhanammal's (1868-1939) musical collaborations with Dharmapuri Subbarayar (mid to late 1800's), Vina Kuppaiyar (mid to late 1800's), Tiruvottiyur Tyagaiyyar (died 1920 I think) and Kanchipuram Naina Pillai (1889*-1938) are well known. What the heck, I've had the privilege of meeting the venerable T Sankaran who served for a time as Tyagaiyyar's willing errand boy. Similarly, I have had the privilege of meeting Shri M D Ramanthan, the star disciple of Tiger Varadachariar (1875 born). Shri S R Janakiraman, the living legend of musicology, was another star disciple of Tiger. If anybody want's to touch the feet of a real person who has touched the feet of Tiger Varadachari who has touched the feet of Patnam Subramania Iyer, lose no time in contriving to seek Shri SRJ's blessings. Like the famed Erdos number, SRJ is the only person living with a "Patnam number" of 2. What a privilege, huh !

Those of us born and raised in Tamil Nadu who have read and followed Carnatic music and its recent history closely have a fairly good idea of the great names associated with it, who might have met who and when and so on. Interesting tidbit: Patnam Subramania Iyer met Swami Vivekananda in 1900 at the behest of Bhaskar Sethupathi in Ramnad.

Given all of this, it is inconceivable that OVK lived anytime in the early to late 19th century.

That leaves OVK either a contemporary of the trinity or more likely...gasp...PRE-TRINITY. Now the naysayers are free to issue a "fatwa" against me for this blasphemy .

*: It is my opinion that the "official" year of birth ascribed to Naina Pillai, 1889, is wrong. He must have been born at least a decade earlier earlier. I cannot believe that he was only 23 years older than Brindamma and that he was only about 30 years old when Brindamma started her lessons with him. In those days, nobody kept any birth records.

Just thought up a few more illustrious contemporaries of a potential post-trinity OVK who somehow completely and magically missed him although they lived in the same region. Again dates are approximate: Ramad (Poochi) Srinivasa Iyengar (1860-1920), Konerirajpuram (Marathurai) Vaidyanatha Iyer (1878-1922), Tirukodikavil Krishna Iyer (1853-1915).

Again, may the curse of the "trinity" be upon me (cbum) to suggest that there was a comparaby great vaggeyakara prior to them. I am sure they are jointly very jealous .

From the posting 131, and the examples cited ,it is not clear to me whether he means that OVK was a contemporary of the trinity or whether he was "influenced " by the trinity or whether Thyagaraja 's pancharatna kritis were inspired by OVK's saptaratna krithis.He has stated that "analyst-( singular)
on this knows better than anyone". This means that he is not an analyst or else he would have simply said that"I know better than anyone " To accept RK's offer ,"one must learn at least a few dozen works before one can even understand (first the meaning in tamil and) its brilliance" vide - Rk,s post no 130) Let us hope for the best.

I think I have a handle on the sankirna issue though partly speculation.
Arunagirinathar has extensively used different tala structure which includes the SUlaDi talas as a subset.
CM has not recognized many of the talas used by AN since the Trinity who adopted the SulaDi paradigm dominated the field and also they were not aware of AN's contributions due to the language barrier. They primarily followed and extended the musical structure expounded in Sanskrit/Telugu granthas and laid the foundation of CM as we know today.

On the other hand OVK as a pre trinity was well-versed in both the sanskrit/tamil works on music of the day. He was quite familiar with AN's thiruppugazh chandas which is replete with 'sankirna' prayogams which he handled with felicity. However as a great sanskrit scholar OVK restricted himself to the evolving grammar of CM based on the Venkatamahi system which accounts for his compositions sticking to Carnatic ragas whereas AN never attributed any ragas to his compositions.

Recently Guruji Raghavan who is a renowned laya expert has set scintillating CM ragas to many of the Thiruppugazh compositions preserving the tala structure of AN. This is a brilliant extension of CM which is yet to be popularised and adopted by CM performers in concerts. Most of them still stick to the handful of Thiruppugazh tuned by veterans Alathur/MMI/MS/... Guruji Raghavan has categorized the Thiruppugazh chandas as 'Anga talas'. All of the SUlaDi talas can be found included therein with several examples of the use of sankirna jaati in a variety of complicated structures and the count of nine is obviously present. OVK being bilingual (Tamil/Sanskrit) was able to capture the beauty of the AN structures was quick to incorporate them into his scheme. it is probable that he even coined the term 'sankiirna' himself. Etymologically 'mishra' meaning seven is a mixture of catusra and tisra whence 'sankiirna' meaning comingle/confuse/mix up is a combination of catusra and khaNDa. There is no equivalent term in Tamil!

Perhaps this brief discussion will clarify and stimulate further investigations (from RK and others) and incidentally establish the credentials of OVK as a pre trinity composer....

Interesting perspective, Uday.



I am sure you mean this as humorously. But in a serious vein, none of the true greats got into composing like an Olympic race to be #1 or #2 etc or get approbations from others... It was just a way of life for them to share their divine equations through their works. The exemplary attitude exhibited by the Trinity and OVK to the architects of our music before their times were echoed best by Einstein - "I am no giant but appear tall because I am standing on the shoulders of the giants before me". The reverence that these great composers felt for the contributors before their times is clearly seen in compositions such as Endaro mahanubhavulu, Vidulaku mrokkeda and Guruleka (of Tyagaraja) and Bhajanamrta, Padmavati ramanam, Alavadennalo, Vande valmiki kokilam etc (by OVK). We as musicians and music lovers gain immeasurably when approaching their works with a similar attitude.


CML: You are very correct about AN's incomparable brilliance and his definite influence on OVK. As I mentioned elsewhere, OVK has himself composed a couple of tiruppugazh-style compositions on Lord Krishna. He also cites him in his piece: singAra vElanukku ennaDi bhAram - darishanam tara illaiyO nEram as below:

iha para sukham tarum tiruppugazh onRinai
eDuttEnaDi manam koDuttEnaDi

But as I wrote earlier, Sankeerna as a jati of 9 units was already mentioned by Shri Govinda Kavi - many decades before OVK. And I also referred to the composition in Sankeerna triputa in that period in a publication by the Saraswati Mahal Library.

Sirs , more interesting analyses ! . But if anyone is logical ( or at least let common sense prevail ) it is not difficult to deduce that Sri Thagaraja Swamy , amidst all his compositions and Sri Rama Nama inscriptions (which ran into Crores) would not have time or inclination to study what other composers were doing, except what he was taught by his father or gurus at the his early age. I have visited the residences of trinities and less than a kilometer separates each one of those houses. It is said they hardly met each other although they existed in the same area and era. So it is highly improbable that saptaratna of Sri OVK had any influence on him during the creation of his gana pancharatnas, which , in however, clubbed togather after his demise. Each one of them was spontaneously composed and hence no room for any influence of other greats. The different style of trinities are there for everyone to judge.

Dear Rasikas,

I'm quoting Vid. Ravikiran here...


As it is clear from previous posts, the whole parampara of Bhaskara Raya is well documented and it has no reference to OVK anywhere. Then who is his guru if he was srividya upasaka at all (that surely has got something to do with his period)? Also, there is a system innate to srividya upasaka in which they pay their tribute to their 3 to 5 predecessors (svaguru, paramaguru, parameshtiguru, paratparaguru, paraparaguru) through which we can obtain a clear hierarchical chain of sishya parampara. My doubt is, has OVK anywhere in any of his compositions mentioned any of his gurus or his deeksha namam?

If OVK was not a srividya upasaka, then i feel that his navavaranams are just another set of kritis. Here, I'm not commenting about its musical brilliance. I'm saying it is just like any other kriti of his...

About the oral tradition, for trinities and even for many pre-trinities we have notated copies of their kritis. For eg, the walajpet notations available at madurai saurashtra sabha for tyagaraja kritis. Similarly, the kritis of talappakam composers were preserved in copper plates. Also, the shisyas of trinities and other great vaggeyakaras were also great musicians who popularised their gurus' compositions. But in case of OVK, the only available source is the oral tradition and even that is passed down through relatively less musical people. And what about the kritis for which only sahityam is available? Who has written those down? How are they tuned?

Another point which has been bothering me is regarding sangita sampradaya pradarshini. In SSP's vaggeyakara charitram, the author mentions all great composers or their lineages except OVK. Here, I would like to add that the lineage of annamacharya is also mentioned under the title talappakkam composers. Why is OVK not mentioned in SSP?

Regarding Polur Govindakavi's work, he gives a mathematical possibility of number nine along with many other values for sankirna. But as OVK was not known to any of the vaggeyakaras or musicians of that period, it is safe to assume that he has not come across the work of Polur Govindakavi (coz any acquaintance with any vidwan of that period would've easily made a person like OVK popular). Then how did he fix upon the value of sankirna as nine?

Ravikiran sir, regarding the composition in sankirna triputa, I'm keen to know which is that composition and who is the composer. It may shed some light on this issue in particular and about the music of that period in general.

Regards
Anoop Krishnan

Dear brother-member, cmlover, Somewhere I have read that Arunagirinathar (he was also called ‘Dindimabhattu’ as he was playing ‘Damaru’ while competing others to confuse with its sound and defeat them but Shrinatha Mahakavi broke his ‘Dindima’ and defeated him as per the history I know) used the prosody of Sankrit in Tamil and composed some songs. That is why they all should not be called as ‘Talas’ or even ‘Anga-talas’ but Chando-roopas. Moreover, they are our musicians who fixed the names of ragas or talas of their own fancy like all other 35 or 108 or 120 or 300 or 500 or 1000 Talas and used them in their concerts.

Why they should not be called either as ‘Talas’ or ‘Anga-talas’? Tala is the name of a musical-metre which, in turn, has ten-kinds of disciplines called ‘Tala-dasha-pranas’. Any musical-metre which fits in the terms and conditions of these ten-disciplines can only be called ‘Tala’. In which way the Sharabhanandana-tala of Shyama Shastry also does not fit in these ten-disciplines even the Chando-roopas of Arunagirinathar also do not fit in and thus, they should not be called ‘Talas’ at all. In the same manner, while ‘Anga’ is also part and parcel of these ten-disciplines and any Anga, irrespective of the number of times it occurs in a Tala-cycle, must carry the same units without any change. But, here, in these Chando-roopas of Arunagirinathar, many of the Angas carry different units at different places. In such case how can they be called ‘Anga-talas’? They should not be. In the absence of the proper knowledge of the Ten-elements and the 10th element, Prastara in particular, people are used to do things as they like and this is our great tradition started by the Great Sharngadeva himself right from 12th century and successfully followed by one and all till now except ‘Tacchoor Singaracharya Bros’ (refer my book, Systematisation of Prastara details of Deshi-talas available in Carnatic Music Book Centre, Chennai).

One must know that the rhythm having mathematical base is one and the same for any person of the universe irrespective of his language.

All are aware that the trinity had strictly followed the Soolaadi-talas only. But, even in these Soolaadi-talas, even in the basic Alankaras which are taught to the aspirants in the primary lessons, one should not forget that ‘Sankeernam’ has never been used. Among the five basic Jaatis, Trisra (3), Chaturashra (4), Khanda (5), Mishra (7) and Sankeerna (9) the Chaturashra (4) is the only even and all the remaining four-jaatis are odds. Even among these four odds while Sankeerna (9) is the only divisible one (by ‘3’) all others, Trisra (3), Khanda (5) and Mishra (7) are indivisible. That is why this Sankeerna has been omitted even in the basic Alankaras and none in the Trinity did use it anywhere. But, some STALWARTS, having no deep knowledge either to exclude or include anything, very conveniently included this Sankeerna-jaati also even in the basic Alankaras just like the members of Board of Studies in the University included all the useless 35-talas in the sysllabus (as they are not going to write any of these examinations and they, actually, do not know which item should be included or excluded as all are performers but not teachers at all). Just like these STALWARTS, some others are also used to make a show by singing Nada-pallavis rendering different units to the Kriyas of the same cycle of a Tala just to bring out a novel thing and to get easy fame.

And, some others are telling that I must bear with the Sharabhanandana-tala as it has been created by one of the trinity, Great Shyama Shastry. In fact, 4 or 5 years back, in the same manner even Padma Vibhooshan, Sangitakalanidhi, Dr.Shreepaada Pinaakapaani showed me how to render the same Sharabhanandana-tala. When I told it is in-correct to render it he asked me ‘Who are you to find fault with it when I have learned it from Pallavi Chandrappa and this has even been created by the Great Shyama Shastry himself?’ Then, when I have proved its in-correctness, then and there, with solid evidences he was compelled to agree as this has mathematical base. In this manner, mistakes always remain as mistakes only irrespective of the person’s greatness in other areas. But, sometimes, when such people are not ready to agree with us, as, in general, in-efficients are more and efficients are less, we must agree with them just like in the political elections and disperse. amsharma

Looks like Shastry & Co are clutching at straws!!

Sarmaji
Thanks for that illuminating post. Like ragas the number of possible talas is also infinite. There is a famous quote in Tamil


Every prime number of beats can lay a claim. But then for practical purposes and human limitations there need be limitations. I agree sankirna as multiple of 3 is reduntant whereas it has come to stay through tradition. The 'anga taalams' do not belong there which is why they are termed different. Again tradition need not be stagnant. There is scope for extensions always from expert gurus like yourself.

My point in my post is only to clarify the currency of the term sankirna to establiish the time-line of OVK.
Ravikiran has clarified the issue so that the controversy may now be at rest..

The 8th charana of OVK's first Saptaratna Bhajanamrta (Nattai), gives a hint of the composer's intimacy with both raga and tala. The piece starts off by paying homage to all the great bhagavatas as follows:

P: bhajanAmrta paramAnanda bhAgavata santa caraNarEnum nirantaram vahAmyaham harinija

In the 8th charana, he says:

krSNa kathAkarNana vrta japa tapa stOtra kvaNitArcana yOga
rAsa mahOtsava vibhava bhAva paramAdbhuta nartana vara nrtya catura
agaNita rAga nava vidha tALa kramalaya gati svara tantri samanvita
AnandAtishaya sukha nimaghna ananta mahAnta caraNAravinda (bhajanamrta)

Initially I wondered which 9 (nava vidha) tala system he was talking about. I then realised that nava here refers to various kinds of talas (nava also means new/novel and here the poet probably pays tribute to all the great tala-kartas of Indian music, clear proof of his awareness of intricate tala and raga system.

In the 7th charanam, he salutes many historic personalities who were architechts of devotional as well as classical music:

shiva hari sharavaNa bhava guha bhajana nirantara mAlAlankrta shObha
vAgIsha shivapAdahrdaya suta manivAcaka sundara DiNDima kavirAja
madhurakavi rAja rAmAnuja kulashEkhara viSNucitta parakAla
purandara tuLasidAsa charaNAravinda dhULi hari shiva guha

He has referred to Arunagirinathar as Dindima kaviraja, aware of his reputation, which ties up with the inclusive but not-limited to reference to nava-vidha tala. Vageesha in this context is Tirunavukkarashar, not Brahma.

The song is a brilliant creation in Sanskrit that salutes both Shiva and Vishnu devotees, a peep into the composer's humility as well as his elevated state of mind devoid of any kind of divide.

Hello! Anonymous Hamsa dear, While Shastry & Co., is trying to know all the hurdles and to remove them in the process of bringing out the importance of our great composer OVK, it seems you, looking with a jaundiced eye, are viewing it of clutching at straws, as you are unable to forget straws. amsharma

Dear Shri Akella Sir

I never included you in Shastry & Co !! Since you have graciously added yourself in this list, I’m forced to reply to your post.



Where???

All of us are seeing that they are either imagining and/or creating hurdles for others to know the greatness of OVK.



You are perfectly correct!! The last 2 days I have been thinking of straws because
of OVk’s sublime composition ‘pullai piravi tara venum’ where he asks that he be granted a birth in Brndavanam even if it were as a straw!!

Anoop ji, could you please enlighten us by posting the entire list of Bhaskararaya's parampara spanning his lifetime of close to 100 years?



11 compositions of the navaravaranam set (including Shree Ganeshwara and the dhyana stuti) eloquently establish OVK as a practising Srividya Upasaka.
It is obvious that those have not been studied yet !!



Do you have the original Telugu version of this book? If so, please quote the exact contents in Telugu along with English translation with page number.

While on the subject I would also like to remind everyone here that Shastry is yet to provide the list of ragas mentioned in Svararnava that Tyagaraja is supposed to have followed.