Dear Rasikas,

I am starting a new thread devoted to value-assessment of OVK's works, since this thread is not appropriate for such a huge subject.

Ravikiran

MODS:
You may consider locking this thread.

Just wanted to place this on the record here.

1.Prof.SRJ said he was aware of manuscripts ending with the name "ArNava" such as RAgArNava etc in the Saraswati Mahal library. He says he has not perused the
contents of this particular Kannada work, "svarArNava". He says he has seen some references to these in Dr.V.Raghavan's, "Later Sangita Literature"
He however feels that the Narada-Tyagaraja legend is mythology.

2.He is also of the opinion that the Sangraha cUdAmani cannot be earlier than 1750 based on its musical contents.

As for the period of Oothukkadu Venkatakavi he has not opined either way

Very unusal of your normal tone.
Perhaps gratuating to become a mod here

musicfan_4201, carrying a grudge long term, as evidenced by your being a pest about it in unrelated threads, in not good for your health

Mr Shastry,

1. Again I would recommend that you read Shri Ravikiran's book "Oottukkadu Venkata Kavi - Life and Contributions". It will give you answers for all the points you have posted in post no. 70

2. One striking point that I wanted to clarify immediately was at how you have jumped at making shallow points even without analysing and understanding the words used by the composer and instead presumed the meaning yourself.

You have clearly gotten confused between the words 'bodha' and 'bodhana' and given the wrong meaning for the phrase 'shreevidyOpAsana bOdhakara' in Shree Ganeshwara

bOdha is not the same as bOdhana.

Here are some interpretations of the word 'bOdha' for your understanding. I hope this will help you understand that OVK has not meant that Ganeshwara is preaching Srividya upasana

(H2) बोध [p= 734,2] [L=145794] mfn. knowing , understanding Asht2a1vS. (cf. g. ज्वला*दि)
(H2B) बोध [L=145795] m. waking , becoming or being awake , consciousness AV. MBh. &c

3. Pls read Shri Ravikiran's informative and point-perfect new thread "Value of OVK's contributions" in which he has answered your points on Shree Ganeshwara

4. I would also like you to answer so many questions about svararnava that were asked in earlier posts. You have not yet answered any of them

I wonder who ghost-wrote your latest post because many of the akshara bhangas(spelling errors) and lakshana bhangas (grammatical errors) that are usually present, seem to be missing !!!!!

Hamsa,your name is a ultimate one. 'para nindana' should not be there. You are calling whom as ghost? . it is in you don't use such words, which will lead you to the same. 'Yam yam vaapi smaran bhaavam tyajatyam kalevaram/tam tamevaiti kounteya sadaa tad bhaavitah//(one who has good or bad thoughts in his mind,ultimately he will attain the same.)'Iam not an english scholar;I even dont have computer knowledge also.(languages are only the means of communication;I am not writing any compositions here;If there is any grammatical mistake ,kindly rectify &read it. mine may be 'a baala bhaasha' having spelling mistakes;but remember,'Sarva bhaashaamayee Saraswati'.I know that Srividyabhagavathi is with me;she is only inspiring me to do this to unearth the truth.You asked a ragas list in swararnavam;It will be posted soon.For every word several meanings will be there in dictionaries.Bodha is such one;here it is used as I had quoted before. here Panchayatana nayaka is not Ganeshwara.Please keep the sahitya beside you & then you only can observe that, the 'dwiteeyaaksara praasas' are incorrect. May the blessings of Srividya bhagavathi be on you.

Dear sirs/madams, while thanking all the active participants for their exhaustive debate, I would like to express my following opinions :- 1) While sri Ravikiran has given wide range of works on OVK ( i even attended one of his OVK aaraadhana at BGSamaja couple of years back wherein, a madhyamavathi kruthi dominated the show for the saahithya and its meaning which was also so similar to old mysore veelya jaanapada geethe, sung during daughters' send off to in laws place ) , very little is done towards the detailed analysis of his kruthis, some of which has been exposed by Sri Shasthri, as regards to elementary errors in dwitheeya akshara prasaas, which rises doubt about his actual time. Does OVK composed these after trinity's period or is it the handiwork of someone else ?

2) More and more kruthis of ovk should be analysed in similar manner so that the credit due to his should be in its place and not an iota of doubt about the original compositions should arise. Analysis of several kruthis is the only answer as to time and place ( desha and kaala ) of the poet. I re-iterate Sri Shasthris words that these are and should not be aimed at discrediting the legend or insulting anyone. But to bring out the best learn more truths and realities of OVK. ( I wonder whether OVKs decedents are there now ?)

3) I request dear Hamsa to confine to comments or opinions on the topic or discussion alone, which are good right now. Commenting on the language or grammatical errors of musicologist is in poor taste. Hamsa ksheera nyaaya should be followed!! . we should not try to cold splash anyone on these lines. Only waste knowledge or analytical skills of musicologists should be taken and not the level of expression. It is logical if an english professor from Oxford commits g_errors and not musicologists.

Now that shri Ravi kiran in his post 74 has summed up the final conclusion and driven the nails firmly and as the initiator of the thread in his latest posting has not added anything pertinent to the point, let us say
May shri OVK's BODY rest in peace in his pre trinity grave away from ghosts.

I too made some errors , which may give wrong signals . Please read, ... credit due to HIM (instead of HIS) and VAST knowledge instead of WASTE knowledge at appropriate place. Hamsaa, please pardon me for the errors.

But ghosts are already there with their viththanda vaadas , nails are driven only on coffins and not on truths

sri ponbhairavi, if ravikiran summedup&stopped writing without clarifications about ovks mistakes,didnot means that this is the end ;ovk willnot be in pre trinity grave because, he was not born at that time Pl. don't kill ovk before his 'janmam'.

1. Your post #1: "Since the very purpose of any inquiry or questioning is to find truth ,I hope these queries lead to a meaningful discussion and if possible to a logical conclusion ."

I say this again: You came in with a conclusion but concealed it with words that sounded as if you had an open mind for discussion. Taking others for granted is not polite.

2. There are two people writing under the id: "srikanthamshastry". I don't know if it is against the forum rules but it is not polite either.

I can understand that it is hard to keep all the various lines of the arguments straight. But you have not addressed or accepted or provided counter arguments to many of the clarifications Sri. Ravikiran had already provided. Instead you started a new line of arguments about OVK's lyrical and prAsA mistakes. if we go back to the initial posts, it started with a few well stated points from your side which Sri. Ravikiran had addressed more than once. There was also another link posted which addresses many of the issues you had raised.

Let us first wrap those lines of arguments of the debate : either agree or provide your counter points or agree to disagree and move on. Rest of the members here can judge for themselves based on the quality of the arguments presented. Let us do that, if necessary, before we go on in new directions that do not serve any purpose in establishing the time period of OVK.

It will be useful if you also provided your hypothesis/theory about the period of OVK and your well researched reasons for that.

Our members are interested in looking at both sides of the issue. It is normal in a debate involving two sides to talk up their side and point faults in the arguments of the other side. But debaters normally acknowledge any fair points made by the other side. So please acknowledge if any of your points have been adequately addressed by Sri. Ravikiran. We owe him at least that.

P.S. ghost-writing simply means that one is writing on another person's behalf. Stating it here so we do not start a discussion on that distraction. Please refrain from ghost-writing, if that is indeed the case here.

Even though the questions raised in this thread have been completely addressed by me and I have moved on to another thread, I am compelled to address some misinformation that I came across. My interest is to ensure that people are not misled.

1)

These are opinions written as guidelines by theoreticians of various eras based on what they studied and/or believed in. Practical music, which combines melody, rhythm and lyrics in various interesting ways is an infinitely bigger subject. Numerous examples of what have been claimed as doshas can be cited here. These are not doshas at all. These are the very beauty of our great system which is constantly expanded by brilliant minds through processes of evolution or revolution. Tradition, as GNB often said, is not a frozen thing but a constant dynamic process.

1. One of the most well known songs will establish this beyond contest.

Mahaganapatim - Nattai - Muttuswami Dikshitar (MD) - Chaturashra Ekam.

How many cycles of tala does this have in Pallavi? Three.

What is the 2nd syllable in the opening line? hA (mahA) What is the 2nd syllable in the madhyamakala in Pallavi? si. (VasiShTa vAmadEvAdi)

Perhaps, the poster is not familiar with this song?

2. Now, an example from the song the poster has himself mentioned - Saraswati Manohari (which I had the privilege of learning from the inimitable Brindamma).

How many lines does anupallavi have? Three.

3. Another well known song: Vatapi - AP = 3 cycles.

4. Moving on to Tyagaraja, how many lines do Shree manini (Poornashadjam) and Evarichira (Madhyamavati) have? Three again...

I can give hundreds more. But my point is not that. It is more that these are all not doshas if seen in the works of mega composers with proven track record such as Dikshitar, Tyagaraja, SS or OVK level composers. They sought to expand and explore newer frontiers, keeping one thing uppermost in their inspired and scholarly minds - their personal artistic visions. [/i]

However, if composers of lesser merit employ such things, they would no doubt be viewed as flaws.



Again, incorrect. The poster would do well to study literature from North India, South India and learn more about this. Does the poster know, for instance that Kalidasa or Valmiki have not employed much of dwitiyakshara prasa? Does the poster know the reason behind use of dwitiyakshara prasa seen in some Sanskrit literature? Since that is not in context here, I will not bore readers with this. Suffice to say that another 'dosha' has been negated.

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.

The other thread covers this point but let me share a common sense perspective of it here. Cycle count of madhyamakalas are obviously half of what they would be in normal speed, since they are rendered at twice the speed.

2 cycles of normal speed + 1 cycle of double speed = 4 cycles of everything in normal speed.

Any student practising sarali varishais would be aware of this. Yet, the poster does not? Again, at surface level, it seems like a big point but it cannot hold water even with someone at a sarali varishai level.

To sum it up, reading a few books and quoting selectively does not add up to erudition. It is not even knowledge. It is just random pieces of improperly digested information. Music is about observing realities from various sources, listening, learning, contemplating extensively, analysing deeply, gaining vast experience and then evaluating carefully. Sometimes, the process can take years. It needs tons of patience, objectivity and humility. Hasty studies with wrong intent and negative mindsets about great people is not research. It can be dangerous and self-defeating.

Thank you Ravikiran ji for another point-perfect and informative post!

Mr Shastry,

1. I would like to add 2 more examples to Shri Ravikiran's list of Dikshitar krtis that have odd number of avartanams in the pallavi.

a. Shree guruguha - Devakriya - Roopakam (Pallavi has 5 avartanams)
b. Amba neelAyatAkshi - Neelambari - Adi (Pallavi has 3 avaratanams)

So this proves that you know as little about Dikshitar as you know about OVK

2.

I wonder whether OVK himself preached the meaning to you for that phrase, through the invoked blessings of Srividya Bhagavati?


3.

Again, wrong lyrics. Correct one is nAyaka vara brndAraka which means Lord of the devas, not commander of Devas

4. You seem to be so kind to yourself about your bhangas, but so hasty and happy to scavenge for other people's mistakes!

..

Sirs I am saddened by the way this debate is going on. I think most people are possessive and try to stick to their views without giving scant respect to the views of the other. In this manner the very purpose and spirit of the discussion is lost. For the first time i feel Ravikiran has erred in replying politely in his post no.90. Mentioning or citing examples of sarale varse to a musicologist or musician of repute will only discredit one's stature. It will be like spitting on sun. nothing short of it. If on expresses his or her opinion it is individual. who are we to make statement or jump to conclusion on selfless vaggeyakaras on who's creations many are making a living or millions have derived pleasure ? Statement without essence will hardly make difference and there can not be any buyers. Any way I am waiting for Sri Shasthris reply and reaction. I hope for the difference in approach while answering.

OK, let us avoid off-hand remarks that may belittle the messengers in the debate. For 99% of the debate, it has been kept that way and it is healthy. Let us stick to the main topic. In fact, all of this could have been avoided if the topic of OVK-vs-Trinity and the evaluation of OVK krithis based on lakshana and lakshaya was not brought into the mix. ( the latter aspect has been moved to a different thread )

There is no need to hurry and wrap up this conversation as a few people have indicated. As long as it is civil even when it is contentious, that should be OK.

*came to know of his composition "Sundara Natarajam" Karaharapriya.(see another thread of Ravikiran.
*Has anyone rendered this -available as link?Ravikiran can provide?
*TVG may help with his enthusiastic downloads in virtual time!

satyabalu

Here is a vocal rendition of Sundara natarajam by Chitravina Shri Ravikiran from a live recording of an OVK special concert at Carnatica's sahityanubhava fest

Accompanists : R K Sriramkumar - violin
Guruvayoor Dorai - Mrdangam

http://carnatica.net/shopping/product_info.php/products_id/103

Please don't be saddened. Sometimes Professors in Physics have to be reminded of Newton's laws. This does not diminish their stature in anyway. Just makes them more human.

I am referring to the post number 90, where Ravikiran sir makes a remark saying that shastry sir does not know saralai varshai!! I feel a musician of his kind should not make a remark about another musician this way. If he feels some point is invalid or not answered, he may point it out, but making such harsh statements insults!! I believe that this is not the intention of the discussion. Only when knowledge is accompanied with politeness and courteousness, it will glitter. I hope such things don't happen repeatedly. It will simply change the direction in which the discussion is heading!!

Again in post 91, the way hamsaa has replied to shastry sir is ridiculous. If you have great respect for Ravikiran sir, its good! Absolutely fine. But showing disrespect to another musician is shameful. You try to decide what shastry sir knows and what he does not know in your post. Let me remind you, this discussion is about OVK and not about how much Shastry sir or Ravikiran sir knows. Its better if you make not of this. You further make a point that shastry sir is trying to scavenge mistakes. Ofcourse, that is the whole point. One is trying to find the possible mistakes in others and trying to convey the actual meaning, with a good intent and to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. It is not to humiliate others. If you are not willing to take any of these and discuss, please back off.. this is not the place for you. You can contact Ravikiran sir later and ask what conclusion they have arrived at!!!

Mannari,

People making a big deal out of doshas and bhangas of divine composers should not cry foul when their own doshas and bhangas are pointed out. Shri.Ravikiran has already made it clear that there is nothing personal in it. To be able to compare songs of Trinity and OVK, one must have studied several compositions in both categories carefully. Readers would agree that Mr.Shastri has not demonstrated that. Any one who has learnt singing basic lessons in multiple speeds would be able to figure out that OVK has composed pallavi lines in multiples speeds and it not wrong. If he has clear understanding, Mr.Shastri would not have said that OVK wrongly composed 3 lines in pallavi.

While MD has employed such techniques in the simple but popular composition Mahaganapatim, and Mr.Shastri claims that Trinity has not done such things, what do you understand?

It does not sound like Mr.Shastri has studied compositions of Trinity and OVK well enough to draw comparisons.