Let me, first of all, make it clear that none of my comments are personal and I never intended to harm anyone's feelings. My fight is and always will be against those ideas which initiated as rumours and got accepted as facts over the course of time without any substantiation. Let me re-assert here that all my comments are backed by proofs which I'm always ready to share with others. Again, I see many posts asking for my reply. I don't think I have left any questions unanswered. And if there is any, I'm sorry to miss those and is ready to answer them if any of you point it out to me.
I don't want to repeat my points but OVK is in no way related to Bhaskara Raya. I challenge all those people who claimed otherwise hitherto to prove me wrong if they can.The lineage of Bhaskara Raya is very well documented. His guru parampara is also well known. And no where, in any of these books, the name of OVK is found. Also, for a srividya upasaka, his guru is everything. It is really astounding and baffling to note that a composer who has penned more than 800 compostions (as many claim) never paid his tribute or even mentioned the name of his guru.
I still stand by my statement that OVK is not at par with the trinities. Here, I'm forced to present the reasons why I said so in the form of analysis of a few kritis. (Ofcourse the work OVK has done to spread carnatic music, if any, can never be compared to that of trinities. Also, his lineage, if present, is no where to that of trinities by any standards.)
Prologue (those who already know these, please excuse me): Sarngadeva in his work sangitaratnakara mentions four types of vaggeyakaras: uthama, madhyama, adhama and kuttikkara. Those who compose both maatu (lyrics) and dhaatu (music) simultaneously are considered as great composers. But even these composers are to follow certain rules. All the great composers from purandara dasa, kanaka dasa, etc. to present day composer Dr. Balamuralikrishna have followed these rules in all their musical and literary works. Some of the must follow rules are given below:
1) Stanzas or padams should not have odd number of lines excluding one, ie, it can have one line, two lines or four lines etc.
2) Prasa: There are so many prasas which are used commonly to add beauty to the kavya. But there is one prasa which is a must in literary works, dwitiyakshara prasa. In this, the second letter of the first word in every should be the same. The composers' brilliance is evident by his usage of totally different words having different meanings but with the second letter repeating in every line. All the great composers (musicians and poets) have followed this rule. It is clear from a first look into all the compositions(eeshwara kavi says in kavijivha bandhanam as a composition without dvithiyakshara prasam is equivalent to a body without life). The dwitiyaksharaprasam is maintained in pallavi-anu pallavi and then in charanam a different letter can be used for the prasam. Even this was a relatively modern practice approx. from the period of trinity. Before that, the whole prabandham was to follow a single aksharam for dwitiyakshara prasam. Eg: Veena Padmanabhayya's Saakethadhipam Bhavaye in shudha velavali.Only some of the post trinity composers did the odd avarthanams, prasabhangam. So, this also indicates that OVK is a post trinity composer.
Analysis of OVK's ganesha dhyanam in shanmukhapriya:
The lyrics of OVK navavaranams are available at http://carnatica.net/lyrics/ooth9.pdf
In the pallavi itself the dwitiyakshara prasam is broken. The first words in pallavi are sriganesha and srividyopasana... But in anupallavi it is again maintained for sriganesha by the words yagayoga and ragarahita but in the madhyamakala sahityam it is again lost. In charanam, it is maintained upto the first line of madhyamakalam from where a totally different akshara takes the second place.
Compare it with dikshitar's composition saraswati manohari (http://sahityam.net/wiki/Sarasvati_Manohari
) which is also having a madhyamakala in pallavi. But the dwitiyakshara prasa is beautifully maintained by dikshitar by the words sarasvati, sarasiruhakshi, and murahara and in charanam it is maintained by akara, prakasa, prakalpita and vikalpa...
Moving on to the language part, sandhi is taken for granted at some places but for the sake of music it is sometimes used as a single word and some times as a two different words.
Eg: varada+abhaya = varadabhaya
analasala+antargata = analasalantargata
Using the same word for prasam (except for yamaka alankaram where the same word is used for a different meaning) is considered poor in the literature field. The word nayaka, sundara etc. has been used for the sake of prasam repeatedly in this kriti without any different sense to it.
OVK gives the adjectives srividyopasana bodhakara (in pallavi) and panchayatnaprapooja nayaka (in anupallavi) to ganesha which is not true. First of all, Ganesha is no where mentioned as srividyopasana bodhakara (i.e one wo preaches srividya). It is either hayagreeva/dakshinamurti/agasthya/lopamudra/manmatha/indra etc. depending on the srividya margam. For the second adjective, I have to explain what a panchayatana is. In a panchayatana, the main deity is kept in the middle where the diagonals of a square intersect and four other devatas are kept on four corners of the square. In srividya, ganesha is placed on a corner not in the center, i.e ganesha is not the nayaka(main deity) of the panchayatana. In charanam, ganesha has been praised as brindaraka sena nayaka (sena nayaka of the devas). Ganesha is the nayaka of ganas( gananayaka) never of brindarakas (devas). It is shaanmukha, he is the deva sena nayaka.
Also, note that the number of lines is 3 in pallavi which is odd both mathematically and literally. It is avartha bhangam. In other words, a stanza is not allowed to have odd number of lines. The same trend is followed in anu-pallavi and charanam by having 6 avartanams and 12 avartanams instead of 4 and 8 or 16.
There a few other bhangams also in this kriti which I'm not mentioning here ( this is already a lengthy post).
Quoting Valmiki here,
"Paada badhoksharah samaha,
OVK who has saluted valmiki has not followed his words for sure.
Also, in the next posts, a complete analysis of the sahithya and sangeetha of inidvidual compositions of OVK would be given. This is just to understand and analyse OVK and his compositions but in no way to insult him.