Recent Posts

Most Used Categories

Tag: Muthusvami Dikshitar

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Composers, CompositionAppreciation, History, Manuscripts, Personalities, Raga

The Rama Taranga-s and Rama Ashtapadi-s of Upanishad Brahmam

by Aravindh Ranganathan

The name Upanishad Brahmam is not new to anyone who has read the divya carita-s of Tyagaraja Svamigal and Sri Muthuswamy Diksitar. Though he was much familiar to the students of Sanskrit literature, the works of Dr.V.Raghavan  made him popular to music lovers. Raghavan has written extensively on the works of Upanishad Brahmam in the late 1950s, which serves as an authentic source even now, to know the works of Upanishad Brahmam in the field of music.

Upanishad Brahmam was born to a Sanskrit scholar of Vadhula gotra named Sadashiva and his wife Lakshmi in Brahmapuram, a village on the banks of the river Palar. He was named Sivarama. He was married, had a son, spent his life as a householder, and then renounced his life and became a sanyasin. His ashrama was set in Agastyashrama in Kanchipuram, on the way to Kailasanatha temple. He took an arduous task of writing a commentary to 108 upanishad-s and hence got the name Upanishad Brahmendra. He was a Sri Rama upasaka and installed a Sri Rama yantra made of Saligrama in his ashrama. His works project him as a Advaita sanyasin, who also extolled and propagated the cult of ‘nama sidhdhanta’ singing ‘bhagavan-nama bhajana’. His compositions bear the mudra ‘ramachandrendra’. Though the exact period of this yati cannot be ascertained, we can clearly say he lived during the middle of 18th century from his own statement,

“प्रजोत्याब्धचापैकादशघस्रे शुभे दिने भौमाश्विन्यामिदं शास्त्रं सम्पूर्णपदवीं गतम्”

(‘prajOtyabdhacapaikAdashaghasrE ShubhE dinE bhaumAshvinyAm idam ShAstram sampUrNapadavIm gatam’). This means he has finished writing commentary for Muktikopanishad in the cyclic year Prajotpatti, Markazhi mAsa, EkAdasi, ASvini nakshatra falling on a Tuesday, which corresponds to the 30.11.1751. A detailed biography of Upanishad Brahmam can be learned from the essays of Raghavan.1,2

The Trio

Upanishad Brahmam gains more importance due to his connections with Tyagaraja Svamigal and Muthuswamy Diksitar. Upanishad Brahmam was acquainted with Sri Ramabrahmam, father of Svamigal. Perhaps, Sri Rama upasana, a common thread between these three mahaniyA-s united them. It is said a ‘srImukham’ written by Upanishad Brahmam, inviting Svamigal to visit Agastyashrama is available in the manuscript collection preserved at Saurashtra Sabha, Madurai. Later, Tyagaraja Svamigal, during his sojourn to holy sthala-s like Tirupati, Lalgudi, etc., visited Kanchipuram. Needless to say, this rendezvous could have resulted in the discussion of the tenets of nama-sidhdhanta and Sri Rama nama mahima.

Even before this historical event, Upanishad Brahmam had an opportunity to meet Muthuswamy Diksitar. Diksitar, having completed his studies with Cidambaranatha Yogi in Kashi, returned to Manali, Madras. His stay in Manali was much brief and his life as an itinerant started from Kanchipuram. The period can be guessed to be anywhere between the late 1790s and early 1800s. Subbarama Diksitar, a nephew of Muthuswamy Diksitar, in his work Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, mentions Muthuswamy Diksitar spent his life in Kanchipuram for a period of 4 years. He also adds, Muthuswamy Diksitar conducted philosophical dialogues with Upanishad Brahmam during this period and set to tune ‘rama ashtapadi’ authored by Upanishad Brahmam. It is surprising to know Upanishad Brahmendra, despite being a composer has asked Muthuswamy Diksitar to tune them. Unfortunately, the tunes are lost.

Sri Rama Taranga

Though Upanishad Brahmendra has composed many divya nama kirtana-s, this article focuses on two of his works, namely ‘sri rama taranga’ and ‘sri rama ashtapadi’. The word ‘taranga’ immediately reminds us of the work of Narayana Tirtar  ‘Sri Krishna Leela Tarangini’. This work describes the divine sports of Krishna Bhagavan in a simple, flowing Sanskrit. The ‘taranga’ of Upanishad Brahmendra describes the lilAnubhUti-s of Sri Ramachandra, again in the divine language Sanskrit. Raghavan, as mentioned earlier, had made a note about Rama tarangamala in one of his essays. The manuscripts in the possession of Raghavan are now preserved at The Theosophical Society, Adyar, and forms a major source for this article.

The tarangamala appears to be much complex in structure. From the descriptions provided by Upanishad Brahmam as introductory verses, it can be speculated the Rama tarangamala had 16 khanda-s or chapters. The author says,
“षोडशकलाभिधानास्तरङ्गमाला गले समर्प्यन्ते” (‘sOdaSakalAbhidhAnAstarangamAla galE samarpyantE’), meaning the taranga-s, sixteen in number similar to the (sixteen) kala-s of moon are being offered.

A composition named as ‘AhvAna taranga’ in the raga Nata begins the work tarangamala. The musical structure and tala of this composition are not available. This composition starting as ‘AgachchAgachcha mE’ is basically an invocation inviting or calling Sri Ramachandra. This can be roughly equated with the kriti ‘hechchariga gA rA rA’ of Svamigal in the ragam Yadukulakambhoji. This composition ‘AgachchAgachcha mE’ is a dvi-dhatu composition – having pallavi and 12 carana-s. A striking feature seen in the compositions of Upanishad Brahmendra is the lack of ‘dvitiyAkshara prAsa’, the second letter concordance. His creations are more in line with the sloka-s written by Sanskrit theologists like Adi Sankara, Vedanta Desika, etc, distinguishing them from the compositions created by the composers belonging to his period. Interestingly, anuprasa is used profusely in many of the carana-s. The usage of ‘putra’, ‘gAtra’, ‘caritra’ and ‘kalatra’ in the first carana, ‘vinda’, ‘kanda’ and ‘govinda’ in the third carana and ‘ShitAsu’, ‘ganEShu’ and ‘mAnEShu’ in the seventh carana can be cited as examples.

Now begins the first khanda of tarangamala. After three invocatory verses, starts the first Taranga ‘srI rAmacandra’ in the raga Mohanam. This Taranga appears to be much intricate, not because of 12 charana-s, but because of the structure of each carana.  Each carana begins with a sahitya, followed by a jati, a svara passage, and a segment of sahityam. In few carana-s, this order is slightly altered. It can be interpreted the svara segment actually corresponds to the sahitya that immediately succeeds it due to the svara-sahitya relationship they share. The svara-s, short, and long match exactly with the hrsva and dIrghAkSharA-a available in the sahityam succeeding the svara segment.

The structure gets more complicated as we move to the eighth caranam. Here, the author has mentioned the jati is to be rendered in dhruva tala. Similarly, it is prescribed in the ninth carana that the jati therein is to be rendered in rupaka tala! The tala specifications is applicable to jati alone or the entire carana cannot be ascertained. If the entire carana is to be rendered in the specified tala with each carana having a different tala, the taranga appears more like a suladi. This assumption can be made only if we get to see tala specifications for all the components and carana-s of this composition, which is not so in this case. The carana having a jati, sahityam and svara passage resembles another musical form prabandha. Again, not all the components, which a prabandha must have is seen here. However, we can definitely say we are looking into a special musical form, which was either invented by Upanishad Brahmam or a form available to the composers of that period!

This Taranga also opens another interesting discussion. From the svara passages, we can get a glimpse of the raga Mohanam used by Upanishad Brahmam. The svarupa of the raga seen here is much similar to the raga extant now. A glance into the history reveals the existence of another raga with the same name, but with a different structure. This defunct raga had six svaras and can be seen in the texts ‘raga lakshanamu’ and ‘sangita saramrta’ of Saha Maharaja and Tulaja respectively. This shadava Mohanam gains importance as the period of Upanishad Brahmam is much closer to the period of Saha (1684-1712) and Tulaja (1677-1736). The mentioned kings also have recorded the present-day Mohanam having five svaras,  but preferred to call it Mohanakalyani.3 Upanishad Brahmam, using five svaras, yet calling it Mohanam is really intriguing. The ‘rama taranga-s’ stop abruptly at this point and leads to another work of Upanishad Brahmam, namely Sri Rama Ashtapadi.

 

Sri Rama Ashtapadi

Our manuscript gives us the most venerated ‘sri rama ashtapadi’ after the Mohana raga taranga.  We get to see an introductory verse detailing the structure of the ashtapadi. The phrases “अष्टाविंशाधिकशत-गीतरत्नाकरोत्तमे” (‘aShtAvimSAdhika-Sata gIta-ratnAkarOttamE’), “श्रीराम-शब्द-सम्बुद्ध्या सकामाष्टविभक्तिकः” (‘srIrAma-Shabda -sambudhyA sAkamashta-vibhaktikaha’) , “एकैकस्या विभक्तेस्तद्गीतं षोडशाद्योच्यते” (‘EkaikasyA vibhaktEstadgItam shOdashadyOchyatE’), “पञ्चाषड्-वर्ण-सन्मालालङ्कारा वरकन्धर” (‘paNcAshad-varNa-sanmAlAlaNkAra vara-kandhara’) clearly elucidates the structure. These can be roughly translated as follows: The ashtapadi-s consists of gita-s 128 in number. All were composed on Sri Ramachandra with the Rama shabda used in eight vibhakti-s (declensions) with each vibhakti having 16 gita-s. All these songs open with each of the 50 letters of Sanskrit alphabet. From the description, it can be said Upanishad Brahmendra served as a source of inspiration for Muthuswamy Diskitar to compose vibhakti kritis!

The individual compositions are referred to as gita-s and each gita has a pallavi and eight carana-s, fashioned in line with the celebrated ashtapadi-s of Jayadeva Maha Kavi. From the material available, it can be presumed that the gitas were arranged into 16 khanda-s, each khanda-s having eight gita-s in all the vibhakti-s.  The khanda-s also have introductory verses and a gita preceding the proper ashtapadi gita-s. This introductory gita alone has 13 carana-s.

We are indeed seeing the ashtapadi-s tuned by Muthuswamy Diksitar! As with the Taranga-s, the ashtapadi-s too are incomplete (in this manuscript) with only eight of them available – one preceding gita and seven from the vibhakti set. The preceding gita ‘srI rAma tubhyam’ was set to the raga Bilahari. (Raghavan considers this as the gita representing the eighth vibhakti in the vibhakti set). Tala was not marked for any of these gita-s. The contents of the first khanda are as follows:

 

 

 

Gita Raga
prAnAdhi nAmAnta Nata
traipada rAmam Yadukulakambhoji
rAmENa mE Saveri
srI rAmacandrAya tubhyam Arabhi
tattaipadAdanya –
rAmacandrasya tava dAsOham Anandabhairavi
vidEha kaivalya Bhairavi

 

It is interesting to note the members of the clan Mayamalavagaula, a favorite of Muthuswamy Diksitar not dominating. However, this statement can be validated only if we happen to get the raga of the rest of the gita-s. Of these eight ragas, two ragas have a composition composed on the deities residing in Kanchipuram, namely ‘kAmAkshi varalakshmi’ in the raga Bilahari and ‘cintaya mAkanda’ in the raga BhairavI. The raga of the gita representing the fifth vibhakti is missing. What could be the missing raga? A raga used by him in one of his  Kanchipura kshetra kritis or otherwise?

The composition ‘rAmacandrasya tava dAsOham’ provides material for a case study. The opening lines was used by Muthuswamy Diksitar in his Purvi raga kriti ‘srI guruguhasya dAsOham’, a member of the ‘guruguha vibhakti’ set. Apart from the similarity in the sahitya, the concept propounded also looks similar. Upanishad Brahmam declares he has united with his Lord Sri Ramachandra in this kriti. Muthuswamy Diksitar proclaims the same in his kriti ‘anandEsvarENa’, wherein he says ‘brahmAnandOsmi’!

Though the structure was much designed to be in line with the ‘gita govinda’ of Jayadeva, few differences too exist. First, the theme seems to be non-erotic. Second, the ashtapadi-s does not seem to explain a story. However, these can be conclusively said only if the sahitya is read and analyzed by a scholar.

Conclusion

We are looking into the kritis of a Sri Rama Upasaka who has influenced and shaped the thoughts of our beloved composers Tyagaraja Svamigal and Muthuswamy Diksitar. The sahitya of these compositions are to be studied in detail to understand the tenets of Upanishad Brahmam. Let us  hope to get the Taranga-s and Ashtapadi-s in full with the blessings of Ramachandrendra.

 

Acknowledgment

I thank the authorities of The Theosophical Society, Adyar for allowing me to peruse the required manuscripts.

I thank Smt. Vidya Jayaraman for translating the verses seen in taranga-s and ashtapadi-s.

 

References

  1. Raghavan V. 1956. Upanishad Brahma Yogin, His life, Works and Contribution to Carnatic Music. Journal of The Madras University. 113-150.
  2. Raghavan V. 1957. Upanishad Brahma Yogin. Journal of The Madras University. 151-152.
  3. Hema Ramanathan. 2004. Ragalakshana Sangraha – Collection of Raga Descriptions, p 890-893.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Composers, CompositionAppreciation, Notation, Raga

Inimitable Raganga-s – Stavaraja

by Aravindh Ranganathan

The rāga-s in Karnataka Music are innumerous and can be grouped into various ways. The most common, and perhaps the well-known system is to identify them as mēlakarta and janya rāga-s. Mēlakarta-s are 72 in number and the commonly used scheme starts with Kanakāṅgi and ends with Rasikapriya. We do have an alternative scheme, wherein these mēlakarta-s are denoted as ragāṅga rāga-s. The latter system considers Kanakāmbari as the first ragāṅga rāga (mēlakarta) and Rasamañjari as the last one. Though, it is commonly believed that mēlakarta or ragāṅga rāga is the parent raga or the clan head that give rises to janya rāga-s, glancing the pages of history reveal this to be a later developed concept and interested readers can refer to an article by Rāmanāthan (1982) to understand the same.

Though we frequently equate ragāṅga raga -s with the mēlakarta raga-s, they are structurally much different, albeit with a few exceptions (See footnote 1). It is pertinent to note that many of the ragāṅga rāga -s are listed as janya rāga-s of their complementary pair in the mēlakarta scheme elaborated in Saṅgraha Cūdāmaṇi, denoting the importance given by the grantakarta of the latter text in distinguishing ragāṅga-s from mēlakarta-s. However, it is true that the Kanakāṅgi system was much popular than the Kanakāmbari system and many composers, posterior to Tyāgarāja Svāmigaḷ and Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar have preferred to use this.

Rāgāṅga rāga-s

The term ‘rāgāṅga’ can be seen in the text Bṛhaddēsi of Mataṅga, said to have been written between 6th and 8th century CE, to denote a group of dēśi raga-s (Hēmalatā 2001:1). However, the term in the present parlance of denoting a clan head (of rāga-s) can be seen only from the text Sangīta Sampradāya Pradarṣini of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. He considers ‘rāgāṅga rāga’ as a sampūrṇa raga which mostly follows grāma raga. This is known as janaka and mēla rāga (Rao 2011:75). His usage of this term was based on work, ‘raga lakṣaṇa’ attributed to Vēṅkaṭamakhī, the author of Caturdandīprakāṣikā.

Only the members of Dīkṣitar family gave a practical and more discernable form to these theoretical entities. Rāmasvāmy Dīkṣitar, a pioneer who served as a perennial source of inspiration for his descendants was the first to apply rāgāṅga rāga-s in his works. The rāgāṅga rāga-s Jhankārabhramari, Tanukīrti, Tōyavēgavāhini, etc., can all be seen in his kṛti-s for the first time (See footnote 2). His descendants Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar, Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar, and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar later elaborated on this. Surprisingly, this tradition did not survive posterior to Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. Among the disciple lineage of this family, these raga-s were used by Tanjāvūr Quartette (See footnote 3).

A careful inspection into Pradarṣini, the only text available to understand theoretical and practical aspects of these raga-s reveals they are not mere scales traversing the octaves; many of them are non-linear in their approach. This non-linearity, which gives them a unique and individual svarūpa was crafted purposefully or it was a documentation of a pre-existent practice cannot be ascertained. This feature is to be concentrated between the complementary members (identified by the same number in the 72 mēlakarta-rāgāṅga rāga schemes) of the different rāga classification systems.

An attempt to study these rāgāṅga rāga-s was made by Hēmalatā (2001). She has not only analyzed the compositions notated in Pradarṣini in these rāga-s, but also classified them based on the number of svara-s taken by them in āroha and avarōha. This kind of characterization can only be done for rāgāṅga rāga-s as melakarta-s are sampurna in both āroha and avarōha, differing only in their svarasthāna-s. This confers them a homogenous nature and any possible svara combination can be applied uniformly to all, at least theoretically. Contrarily, the nonlinearity seen with the rāgāṅga rāga-s makes them special and make us delve more into them.

These rāga-s deserve more individual attention as we do have many compositions outside the text Pradarṣini and also attributed to Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar. Moreover, taking a single rāgāṅga and analyzing all the compositions available gives us a better view of the raga svarūpa seen in these compositions. This also facilitates us to compare the lakṣaṇa of the rāgāṅga-s seen in the compositions available in Pradarṣini with those not notated in Pradarṣini. This section is intended to cover these rāga-s.

As a first step, this paper will highlight the phrases unique to the rāga Stavarāja, as seen in Pradarṣini, identify the differences between Stavarāja and Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi and proceeds to understand the svarūpa of Stavarāja seen in the compositions not notated in Pradarṣini.

The complementary pair

Stavarāja, an unpopular rāga is placed as 46th rāgāṅga raga in the Kanakāmbari – Rasamañjari scheme followed by the Dikṣitar family. Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi is its complementary rāga in the Kanakāṅgi – Rasikapriya mēlakarta scheme. Both the rāga-s take the same svara varieties – śuddha ṛṣabha, sādhāraṇa gāndhāra, prati madhyama, catuśruti dhaivata, and kaiṣiki niṣadha apart from saḍja-pañcama. This similarity had made many of us believe that they are indeed the same rāga-s but with different names. However, the compositions in this rāga reveal discernable differences existing between them. Let us first examine Ṣadvidamārgiṇi and then proceed to understand Stavarāja.

Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi

Like any other mēlakarta, this is a sampūrṇa rāga, a raga with all the seven svara-s in both āroha and avarōha, arranged in order. Almost all the compositions available in this raga are treated similarly (only the works of composers who lived and/or composed prior to 20th century are considered). The mēla rāgamālika of Mahā Vaidyanātha Śivan (Subraḥmaṇya Śāstri 1937:55-56) handles this more like a sampūrṇa scale with no special phrases. However, we do find phrases that cannot be restricted within the scale in few other compositions, as can be seen from the table (See footnotes 4 and 5). Hence, Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi can be visualized as a krama sampūrṇa rāga with few exceptional phrases. However, PDS seems to be important and is perhaps the only phrase transferred from gīta to kṛti (outside its linear scale).

                                   Table – Special phrases seen in the raga Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi  

Composition Phrases
Ā rē rē sīta manōhara – Gīta SGRG, SMG, MDP, PDS and PNS
Gñanamosaga rāda of Tyāgarāja Svāmigaḷ PDS
Antaraṅga bhakti of Kōtīṣvara Ayyar PDM and NDM

 

Stavarāja

Contrary to Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi, its complimentary pair Stavarāja is introduced by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar as an audava-audava rāga, lacking (varjya) gāndhāra – niṣādha in the ascent and pañcama – ṛṣabha in the descent. Though this can be simply represented as SRMPDS SNDMGS, the real svarūpa of this rāga can be perceived only by studying the gīta, attributed to Vēṅkaṭamakhin, a kīrtana and a sañcāri of Muddusvāmy and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar respectively. This raga also features in the ragāṅga rāgamalika, ī kanakāmbari of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar, a lexicon to understand the rāgāṅga rāga system (See footnote 6).

Analysis of the above-mentioned compositions reveals the presence of a lot of phrases outside the prescribed mūrccana, which can be learned from the table. The svara ṛṣabha occurs only as SRMP or GRS. Whenever we try to train our minds to accommodate the lakṣana prescribed in the mūrccana, we are surprised by any one of the outliers observed in the table. This surprise element continues with the kṛti of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar ‘stavarājādinuta’ on Lord Bṛhadīṣvara of Tanjāvūr.

Bṛhadīṣvara was a source of inspiration for Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar, perhaps during his stay in Tanjāvūr, as a court musician in the Court of Śerfōji II (r1798-1832). Many of the kṛti-s composed on Bṛhadīṣvara and his consort Bṛhadamba are in rare rāga-s and Stavarāja is one such. With very few exceptions, the kṛti-s (on Bṛhadīṣvara and/or on his consort Bṛhadamba) do not have much information on sthala, tīrta or mūrti. Neither these kṛti-s are filled with heavy philosophical content. Certainly, this kṛti cannot be placed under the exceptional category.

‘Stavarājādinuta’ is a small kṛti set in pallavi – anupallavi – svara pattern. Interestingly, the prayōga SRMPD featuring in the gīta ‘ravi samnibha’ and in the sañcāri cannot be located in this kṛti! Contrarily many new phrases not seen in the gīta can be seen here. Despite these differences, we can clearly see the influence of this gīta on Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar. Lot of similarities can be seen between the two compositions. Both the compositions start with the phrase DMGS. The immediate phrase succeeding DMGS is SNNSNNP in the gīta and S,NSNNP in the kṛti.  Both the compositions use dhaivata and niṣādha as janṭa in plenty as PNN, DDNDP, etc. Also, the svara ṛṣabha is used sparsely as in gīta.  All these features direct us to conclude that the mentioned kṛti of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar was composed based on this gīta. In that case, we need to account for the prayōga-s featuring in this kṛti alone.

We need to analyze two compositions of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar before arriving at a conclusion, namely ī kanakāmbari, a rāgamālika mentioned in the earlier part of this article and a sañcāri.  The Stavarāja segment in the rāgamālika too starts with the phrase DMGS and is followed by SNDS. It is a faithful reproduction of phrases seen in the gīta, though in his own style. The rāgamālika and sañcari also have unique phrases seen only in the kṛti of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar like SRGS. Interestingly, his sañcāri, set to maṭya tāla also has many phrases not seen in other compositions – gīta and kṛti. We find MDDMP, PDP, PGGS, DNND, and NPDM only here. This raises the question again – the authority on which Dīkṣita-s introduced these new phrases.

 

                                                          Table – Phrases available in the raga Stavaraja

Composition Phrases
Ravi samnibha – Gīta GGRS, PMP, PNND, PSNS, NDPM, NPMPSS and SNP
Stavarājādinuta – Kīrtana MDPM, DRS, DDNDP, SRS, SNDP and PMG
Sañcāri MDDMP, PDP, PGGS, DNND and NPDM

 

An interpretation of this kṛti, as notated in Pradarṣini can be heard here.

This issue can be addressed in two ways – these phrases can be considered as an innovation by Dīkṣita-s or Dīkṣitar family must have had additional materials like tāna-s or gīta-s in their possession, displaying these phrases. The second possibility appears more plausible as Subbarāma Dīkṣitar reiterated several times in his text that he had many more materials in his possession and has not published them due to space restraint. A similar issue was explained by the author in an article on Gōpikāvasanta.

When the compositions of Muddusvāmy and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar in this rāga are compared, we can see the latter gave an elaborate treatment, more so than the former. We find all the phrases of gīta in his rāgamālika and many new phrases in his sañcāri. Whereas, despite taking inspiration from the gīta and modeled like that, the kṛti ‘stavarājādinuta’ does not have all the phrases that can be located in the gīta. We have already observed such a finding when we discussed the kṛti ‘rudrakopa’ and the rāga Rudrapriyā.

It can be reminded that the text Saṅgraha Cūḍamaṇi, which places many of the rāgāṅga-s as a janya-s of mēlakarta-s, fail to recognize Stavarāja. This makes us believe, not all could have been aware of the rāgāṅga rāga-s like Stavarāja, in the past. Perhaps, these rāga-s could have been known only to the privileged disciples of Vēṅkaṭamakhī. Hence, to understand a rāga like this, it is essential for us to go through all the available compositions notated by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. Based on these facts, it can be speculated that Dīkṣita-s could have had an access to unpublished materials, available only with them, carrying all these phrases, transmitting the legacy to the next generation.

The phrases not confirming with the mūrccana given in Pradarṣini carries high significance. Many of the phrases like GRS, SNP, etc., gives more flexibility for an otherwise strict scale. This peculiar feature is seen only with the rāgāṅga rāga-s. This feature is to be compared with their counterpart, Ṣadvidhamārgaṇi, wherein the latter strictly follows the scale with very few exceptional phrases. These exceptions too do not create an aural impact, as these rāga-s are all karma sampūrṇa-s with these phrases occurring occasionally. Whereas the vakra phrases, forming an integral part of the rāga architecture are seen only in the rāgāṅga-s creating a different melodic texture. This is accentuated when a svara given as varjya (ga – ni in the āroha and ri – pa in the avarōha) in mūrccana occurs in the composition, that too repeatedly. Hēmalata also highlighted this point in her thesis. She proceeds further and says such a course is not possible with the janya rāga-s having varjya svara-s, in the mēla scheme.  For example, the rāga Āndōḷika with the scale SRMPNS SNDMRS cannot have the phrase PMRS or SNP (Hēmalatā 2001:89).

Madhurāmbām bhajarē

Perhaps the only other kṛti available in this rāga is ‘madhurāmbām bhajarē’. This kṛti is attributed to Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar and forms a component of ‘Non – Pradarṣini kṛti-s’. Non-Pradarṣini kṛti-s are those compositions not notated by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar in his texts but found in the books published later and are attributed to Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar.

Kallidaikuricci Sundaram Ayyar (Sundaram Ayyar 1992:39-40), a disciple of Ambi Dīkṣitar has published a series of books, predominantly containing the kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar in notation. These books serve as an additional source to know about the kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar, especially the ones not published by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. For the same reason, these kṛti-s usually find a place under the ‘spurious’ category. He has notated two kṛti-s in this rāga – ‘stavarājādhinuta’ and ‘madhurāmbām bhajarē’. The kṛti ‘stavarājādhinuta’ much resembles the version given by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar and hence the second kṛti will be taken up for discussion.

This is a paean to the Goddess Mīnākṣi of Madurai. This kṛti, along with nine other kṛti-s is usually grouped as Madhurāmba vibhakti kṛti-s. Interestingly, only two of the nine kṛti-s are notated in Pradarṣini, namely ‘śri mīnākṣi gauri’ in the rāga Gauri and ‘śyāmalāṅgi mātaṅgi’ in the rāga Śyāmaḷa. It is to be noted that both the kṛti-s does not carry the śabda ‘madhurāmba’.

The kṛti ‘madhurāmbām bhajarē’ describes Mīnākṣi as a daughter of the Sage Mataṅga (mataṅga tanayām) enshrined in Madurai (madhurāmbām), the one who delights the heart of Manu, Kubera, etc., the giver of prosperity (dhaninīm) and the one who is pleased with praises offered in the rāga Stavarāja (See footnote 7). This kṛti is free of prosodic errors, as seen with many other ‘spurious’ kṛti-s, attributed to  Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar.

The kṛti starts with the phrase PDSSND and has all the standard phrases that fall within the mūrccana of this rāga. The non-mūrccana phrases, typical to these rāgāṅga-s are also seen aplenty. These include SRS, PGS, DND, DMG, and DRS. It is to be noted that the phrase PGS is seen only in the sañcāri of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar and DRS occurs only in the kṛti ‘stavarājādhinuta’. SRS occurs in both the kṛti and sañcāri. There occurs a prayōga MDPD, unique only to this kṛti. This phrase occurs thrice, in madana janakādi, mataṅga tanayām, and mādhavādya. The authority on the use of this phrase is not clear.

Excluding the phrase MDPD, the rāga lakṣaṇa portrayed here is much in line with the Stavarāja of the gītaṃ, kṛti and sañcāri. However, the approach seen here is distinguishingly different from the above-mentioned compositions. First, the vital phrases like DMGS, PNNDPM, NNDPM, SNNP, etc., seen in the gīta, kṛti (stavarājādhinuta) and rāgamālika are missing in this kṛti. These phrases are abundant and used repeatedly in the compositions notated in Pradarṣini and when heard together, the melodic structure of Stavarāja can be better perceived. The absence of these phrases in ‘madhurāmbām bhajarē’ fails to create an image of Stavarāja, as experienced with the other kṛti-s mentioned. In addition, we see phrases like MDP- PM-PG-ND, a style usually not seen in the kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar notated in Pradarṣini. Second, the svara-s gāndhāra, niṣādha, dhaivata are often used as janṭa in the compositions notated in Pradarṣini. In this kṛti, niṣādha alone occurs as a janṭa svara as SNND in two places. Third, there are no mandra sthāyi phrases in this kṛti. The phrases in the mandra sthāyi are an integral part of a kṛti of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar. In the kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar notated in Pradarṣini, we see mandra sthāyi phrases either in the basic structure of a kṛti or in its svara segment. Very rarely, we find an exception, like ‘arunācalanātham’ in Sāraṅga. In fact, the majority of the older versions of the kṛti-s of Tyāgarāja Svāmigaḷ too have mandra sthāyi phrases. The absence of such a phrase in this kṛti is intriguing. The kriti ‘madhurāmbām bhajarē’ as notated by Kallidaikuricci Sundaram Ayyar can be heard here.

Though the difference of opinions exists on the authenticity of this kṛti, the Stavarāja presented here abides the rāga lakṣaṇa given in the text Pradarṣini. If we exclude the phrase MDPD, the phrases seen in this kṛti are authorized by the compositions mentioned earlier. At the same time, it is to be accepted that the presentation of Stavarāja in this kṛti is very different from the compositions seen in Pradarṣini and sounds more like a variant of Ṣadvidamārgaṇi.

Conclusion

Many of the rāgāṅga rāga-s are much different from their complimentary pair in the mēlakarta system. Stavarāja is one such rāga which is to be distinguished from Ṣadvidamārgaṇi. Subbarāma Dīkṣitar gives three compositions in this rāga and all display a similar rāga lakṣaṇa. It is through these compositions, we can perceive the rāga Stavarāja.

Madhurāmbām bhajarē, a kṛti attributed to Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar is not seen in the text Pradarṣini. The phrases seen in this kṛti are very much in line with Stavarāja of Pradarṣini, with the exclusion of a single phrase. However, the melodic structure of this kṛti does not fit with the approach seen in the compositions notated in Pradarṣini. The melodic structure perceived by Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar has been modified or it was composed by a musician who was inspired by the Stavarāja handled by Dikṣita-s remains a mystery.

 

Footnotes

1.It is technically not correct to say Kanakāṅgi is equivalent to Kanakāmbari, Rasikapriya is equivalent to Rasamañjari and so on, and treating the kṛti-s composed in these two rāga-s in a similar way.

2.The usage of these raga-s in kṛti -s are considered here, as gīta-s in these raga-s, notated in Pradarsini predate the works of Rāmasvāmy Dīkṣitar.

3.Analysis of their compositions and a manuscript with a descendant of Tanjavur Sivanandam indeed reveals they have composed in many of the rāgāṅga rāga-s. The readers can refer to an article by the author for more details. The article can be accessed here. https://tlmthelostmelodies.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/sri-guruguha-navaratnamalika/

4.Though this kṛti is now sung in Purvikalyani, it is said to have been composed in Sadvidamargani. This kṛti also had a version in Gamanasrama. The phrase PDS is seen in the version given by Srinivasa Ayyangar (pg 101), but conspicuously not present in the version notated by S. Parthasaradhi (1986:58-60).

5.The phrase PDS is seen in the kṛti ‘antaraṅga bhakti’, notated by S.Rajam (1998:87-88).

6.A poet by name Kṛṣṇa Kavi composed this rāgamālika, which was tuned by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar.

7.Translation by V Gōvindan, can be accessed on the site http://guruguha.blogspot.com/2008/03/dikshitar-kriti-madhurambam-bhajare.html.

 

References

Hēmalatā R. A study of the rāgāṅga rāga-s in the Sangīta Sampradāya Pradarṣini of Subbarāma dīkṣitar. 2001. PhD Thesis submitted to Department of Indian Music, University of Madras.

Pappu Vēṇugōpāla Rao (Ed). 2011. Saṅgīta Sampradāya Pradarṣini of Subbarāma Dīkṣitulu. English Translation – Volume I. The Music Academy.

Pārthasārati S. 1986. Śrī Tyāgarājasvāmi Kīrtanaigaḷ – Tillaisthānam Pātam. Published by Sadguru Śrī Tyāgabraḥma Ārādana Kaiṅkaryam, Madras.

Rājam S. 1998. Śrī Kōtīsvara Ayyarin Kīrtanaigaḷ. Published by Rasikās, Mailapūr.

Rāmanāthan N. 1982. The concept of mēla. Journal of The Madras University, Volume LIV (1), accessible in the site   http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2318

Śrīnivāsa Ayyaṅgār K.V. Saṅgīta Cintāmaṇi. Published by M.S. Rāmulu and Company, Madras.

Subraḥmaṇya Śāstri (Ed).1937. The Mēlarāgamālika of Mahā Vaidyanātha Śivan. Published by The Adyar Library, Madras.

Sundaram Ayyar A. Kallidaikuricci. 1992. Śrī Dīkṣita Kīrtana Mālā, Part XI. Published by Music Book Publishers, Madras.

 

 

 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Repertoire

Tyagaraja Mahadvajaroha – The Magnum Opus in Sriraga

by ravi rajagopalan

चतुर्णां  पुरुषार्थानां  त्यागं  अस्मात्  कर्तोत्यतः  | 
त्यागराजम्  इति ख्यातं  सोमास्कन्दम्  उपास्महे  ||

caturṇāṃ  puruṣārthānāṃ  tyāgaṃ  asmāt  kartotyataḥ  | 
tyāgarājam  iti khyātaṃ  somāskandam  upāsmahe  ||

(Meaning: I offer my obeisance to that Lord Somaskanda renowned as Tyagaraja, and known so for sacrifice (i.e the sacrifice of karmaphala leading to liberation) among the four purusharthas.

(Venkatamakhin’s – Invocatory sloka in his Caturdandi Prakashika, Circa 1620AD)

Prologue:

And so prayed Venkatamakhin, the revered grand sire of our music and musicology to the great Lord of Tiruvarur who was the God head for the then reigning Kings of Tanjore, the Royal House of the Nayakas, as a prelude/benediction to his treatise the “Caturdandi-Prakashika”(CDP). Venkatamakhin by that single act had consecrated Lord Tyagaraja as the fountainhead of the music of Tanjore and all that of Karnataka Sangitam. More than 150 years later, the Temple at Arur had a unique relevance and nexus to Muthusvami Dikshitar, for he apart from being born at Tiruvarur went on to compose a number of kritis on Lord Tyagaraja and those countless deities that adorn the massive temple complex.

One such kriti on Lord Tyagaraja is “Tyagaraja Mahadvajaroha” in Sri raga, by Muthusvami Dikshitar who in the illustrious tradition of Venkatamakhin pays his obeisance to the Lord, which has a number of unique significances in terms of music and the lyrics. And this kriti is rarely heard in modern concerts. The kriti struck a chord in me as I read two particular texts, one being the translation of “Sri Tyagesa Maharathosava Varnana Parishloka” of the revered Mahamahopadhyaya Mannargudi Raju Sastrigal and the other being Dr B M Sundaram’s ‘Alaya Vazhipatil Isai’. The kriti ‘Tyagaraja Mahadvajaroha’ offers a pen picture of the Panguni Festival of Lord Tyagaraja and is unique in that aspect as there exists no such similar composition comparable to its underlying concept or grandeur.

Tiruvarur is one of the sapata vitaka ksetras and the rituals and rites associated with the Temple are found documented in the Siva Purana, a copy of which forms part of the manuscript collections of the Sarasvati Mahal Library, Tanjore. Conventionally speaking the Vasantotsvam or the Panguni Uttiram festival of the Temple lasts for 51 days (mark the concordance of the number with the syllabary of Sanskrit language) of which about 36 days are reserved for festivities for Lord Tyagaraja and for Lord Valmikanatha (the presiding deity or the moolavar of the Temple).

 Lyrical Background to the Composition:

The kriti is obviously a narrative of the festivities of the Vasantotsavam, the Spring Festival celebrated during the Tamil month of Panguni corresponding to the months of March-April of the Gregorian calendar. This festival consists of a sequential set of processions and festivities as under:

  1. Dhvajarohanam – flag hoisting to mark the beginning of the festival.
  2. Processions of the parivara devatas – Ganapathy, Subramanya and Bhairava
  3. Processions of the Lord on the Gaja (Elephant), Vrushaba (Bull) and Kailasa vahanams or mounts
  4. The Azhi Ther or the Great Car Festival on the asterism of Aslesha (Star Ayilyam)
  5. Ajapa natanam by which the Lord in procession dances in a slow cadence of the natana which is native to the Tyagaraja of Tiruvarur. A form of natana is ascribed as being unique to every one of the sapta-vitanka ksetras.
  6. Teerthavari in the Kamalalaya tank or the ritual cleansing towards the end of the festivities.
  7. Pada-darshanam – Year throughout, the feet of Lord Tyagaraja are covered with flowers and cannot be sighted at all. Pada darshanam is exclusively done twice a year by which His right foot alone is beheld for darshan during the Panguni Festival and the left foot alone can be similarly beheld during the Tiruvadirai Festival. Legend has it Sage Patanjali is given the darshan of the right feet (pAdam) during Panguni Festival while Sage Vyaghrapada is similarly given darshan of the (other) left feet/pAdam during the Tiruvadirai Festival. This ritual of Eka pAda darshanam has been masterfully woven into the lyric, the musical significance of which we will see shortly.
  8. Procession by Lord Chandrasekarar in the paarvetai or the customary hunt and on festival days as the utsava moorti/representative icon of Lord Tyagaraja.
  9. The celestial wedding ceremony of the Lord whence He becomes Lord Kalyanasundaresvarar.
  10. Conclusion of the edition of the festival with the procession of Chandikesvarar

The kriti apart from cataloguing all these celebrations in the festival seriatim in its lyrics. has references to the following:

  • Use of the nagasvara, maddala and such other instruments during the festival. From the point of view of (dviteeyakshara) prasa, since the consonantal letter occurring across the pallavi and anupallavi is ‘ga’ – (tyAga, yE-ga, Aga, nAga, yAga and bhOga), it is deduced the musical instrument is to be called ‘nAgasvaram’ and not ‘nAdhasvaram’ as we refer to it popularly.
  • The application of Krishna Gandha or the black perfume – One may refer to this article by Dr Nagasvami on the perfume.
  • Lord Tyagaraja is expounded by the Vedas, is the Lord of the Eight- fold path and who has the ambrosial elixir itself as his Offering.

The reference to the eight-fold path (yamadi-ashtanga-yoga) is reminiscent of the same phrase used in ‘Sri Matah shivavamanke’ (Begada) and the ‘bodhamrutha’ is the one that Dikshitar seeks from Lord Jambukesvara (vide the phrase ‘ananda-amrutha-bodham dehi’ occurring the Yamuna Kalyani kriti ‘Jambupate Mam pahi’). Though not found in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, the Margahindola kriti “Chandrashekaram sada bhajeham” too carries references found in this kriti such as ‘suddha maddala’, ‘ashtasiddi dayakam’, ‘ashtapasha hara teerta vaibhavam’ and ‘ajapa-natana-ananda-vaibhavam’. The kriti is also replete with philosophical doctrines and precepts along with the reference to the ‘ajapa’ (meaning un-recited) propitiation of Lord Tyagaraja , an esoteric yogavidya forming part of the hamsa natanam signifying the supreme vedic concept ‘hamsah-soham’,symbolizing the inward and outward breath– as being in the cadence of the ajapa nartanam- of Lord Mahavishnu who is said to be in deep meditation on Lord Tyagaraja.

From a lyrical standpoint, the sequential references to the said spring festival, the way the narrative has been seamlessly woven as a flowing lyric and the prasa concordance – the letter ‘ga’ for the pallavi and the anupallavi and the letter ‘sh’ for the carana section forms the ornamentation for the composition. That apart as always, Dikshitar weaves in his signature/mudra as well as the raga name into the fabric of the composition. It is highly likely that one year, having witnessed the festivities he must have been so enraptured and taken in by the spirit of the festival that he went on to compose the same in an auspicious and benedictory raga, being Sriraga.

The text of the kriti together with the general meaning of the lyrics can be gotten from here.

Musical Background to the Composition:

In the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini there are 4 compositions listed out as having been composed by Muthusvami Dikshitar in Sriraga and this is one among them.

1.      Sri Muladhara Chakra Vinayaka

2.      Tyagaraja mahadvajaroha

3.      Sri Varalakshmi Namastubhyam

4.      Sri Kamalambike Sive Pahimam

Apart from the above, the pallavi portion of the caturdasa ragamalika ‘Sri visvanatham bhajeham’ (found in the Anubandha to the SSP) is in Sriraga. The choice of Sriraga for this composition, ‘Tyagaraja Mahadvajaroha’ is hardly surprising given the pithy commentary which Subbarama Dikshitar provides for the raga and its greatness therein.

The following is the summary:

  1. Sriraga’s life blood is the rishabha which is both the jiva and nyasa svara.
  2. The gandhara note is vakra, occurring in the avarohana krama.
  3. Dhaivatha is alpa or rare in its usage and in a composition occurs only once in its body.
  4. RGRS and PDNP are the leitmotifs of the raga.
  5. The raga is classified as a ghana raga and is the preferred or appropriate melody for exposition by accomplished vaineekas.
  6. The raga is to be sung in the evenings and confers auspiciousness whenever it is sung.

In line with the above key lakshanas of the raga, when we view the musical setting of ‘Tyagaraja mahadvajaroha’ the following would become obvious:

  • Recognizing the primacy of the rishabha note and as if to reinforce the same, Dikshitar repeatedly begins every section of this composition, pallavi, anupallavi and carana only on the rishabha note.
  • The alpa dhaivatha occurs once in the composition at ‘pAda darshanam’ in the carana.
  • The composition spans all the 3 octaves from mandhara pancama to the tara gandhara
  • The musical phrases RGRS, P/r and M/N occur in profusion in the composition apart from the singleton PDNP.

Dhaivatha in Sriraga and the its unique usage in this composition:

As Subbarama Dikshitar points out, the dhaivatha note is rare or alpa and he says that on the authority of the lakshana shloka he cites in the SSP ascribing it to Venkatamakhin. It has to be pointed out here that the sloka which is cited in SSP is likely that of Venkatamakhin’s descendant Muddu Venkatamakhin, as the sloka cited in the SSP is at variance with the lakshana sloka for Sriraga found in the CDP. The sloka in the SSP, tracing to the Anubandha of the CDP refers to the alpa dhaivatha whereas the sloka for Sriraga found in the original CDP makes no reference to the dhaivatha usage in Sriraga.

Musicological history reveals to us that Sriraga is an old and hoary raga probably as old as our music itself. According to Venkatamakhin himself in his CDP:

śrīrāgah paripurno’pi ga-dha-yoḥ sthāna varjitah |
geyah sāya samayĕṃ sarvasampat pradāyakaḥ ||  

Meaning: Sriraga is sampurnam/complete with gandhara and dhaivatha being dropped and is to be sung in the evening and which confers all fortunes.

While in Venkatamakhin’s scheme, Sriraga corresponds to the 22nd combination, it was King Shahaji who in his work “Ragalakshanamu’ (AD 1720) anointed Sriraga as one of the 19 melakartas and indicates for the first time in the musical history of the sparse occurrence of dhaivatha in the raga. The same is echoed subsequently by both Tulaja in his Saramrutha (1736 AD) and by Muddu Venkatamakhin (circa 1750 AD) in his raga compendium titled ‘Ragalakshanam’ of the so called Anubandha to the CDP.

Thus, in short it can be surmised that in so far as the music of Tanjore is concerned, the dhaivatha note made its foray into the raga only circa 1700 AD, with the convention that it should be alpa/sparse in its usage, appearing only once in a composition. Subbarama Dikshitar too in his SSP provides an older (prior to AD1700 possibly) Raganga Lakshya Gita (with the refrain ‘Sri Rukmini kalyana karana’) for Sriraga without the dhaivatha prayoga.  The feature of ragas sporting alpa prayogas is an architectural construct of 17th Century music, completely lost today in modern day musicology which by its arohana/avarohana obsessed approach is devoid of mechanisms to capture such quaint features of raga lakshana. (See Foot Note 1)

In so far as the dhaivatha usage amongst the 5 compositions of Muthusvami Dikshitar listed above, the following observations can be made.

  1. Sri Muladhara chakra – Dhaivatha does not at all occur in the composition.
  2.  Tyagaraja mahadvajaroha – occurs once at ‘pAda darshanam’ as PDNPMRGR.
  3.  Sri Varalakshmi – occurs once at ‘keshava hrutkelinyai’ as PDNP.
  4. Sri Kamalambike – occurs once at ‘Srikari sukahari’ as PDNP.
  5. Sri Vishvanatham – occurs once at ‘dharanAntahkaranam’ as PDNP

It has to be thus noted that:

  • The occurrence of the dhaivatha note is just once in the entire composition and
  • It is through the usage, not as a standalone note but as a musical phrase PDNP and not otherwise.

Thus, one can state that ‘Sri Muladhara Chakra’ was composed by Muthusvami Dikshitar in the older/archaic Sriraga, bereft of the dhaivatha note and the others were composed in the later/contemporaneous version of the raga, strictly adhering to the singleton dhaivatha usage.

And from a rendition perspective possibly in line with the edict of the purvacharyas as alluded to Subbarama Dikshitar, the dhaivatha laden phrase PDNP should be dealt with in any expositional segment alapana, tanam, kriti, neraval or svaraprastara by any performer, by using the dhaivatha note only once.

In so far as this composition ‘Tyagaraja mahadvajaroha’ goes the dhaivatha note occurs via the phrase PDNP only once in the lyrical portion ‘pAda darsanam’ right at the very end of the composition. In other words:

  1. It has been used by Muthusvami Dikshitar to signify the eka pada darsanam i.e the once a year occurrence of the pada (right pada in this case) of Lord Tyagaraja.
  2. The same is signified beautifully through svarakshara usage with the words ‘pAda darsanam’ set to the musical cadence P D dnp thus rhyming with the lyric as well.
  3. The lyric ‘pAda darsanam’ quaintly occurs at the very end of the charana (equivalent of pAda) segment of the composition just ahead of the grand finale being the madhyama kala sahitya portion.

Thus, the way the dhaivatha note and the phrase PDNP along with the festive event namely the ‘eka pAda darsanam’ has been conjoined lyrically and musically by Dikshitar elegantly while architecting the composition is an ornamentation or a marvel to be enjoyed, as one beholds it while hearing or singing.

DISCOGRAPHY:

The kriti ‘Tyagaraja Mahadvajaroha’ is rarely heard on modern concert platforms and therefore there are just a handful of renderings most possibly being learnt from notation directly from the SSP. And amongst those there are two rendering styles, on being in a slow and sedate pace while the other being in a tad faster yet sprightly mode.

Presented first is the rendering of the same by Sangita Kala Acharya Smt Seetha Rajan and her disciples in the tad faster kAlapramAnam /speed of rendering.

Smt. Seetha Rajan – tyAgarAja mahA dhvajarOha – Sri – Dikshitar – YouTube

It is my considered view, based on the notation in the SSP, the way the second kalam phrases are constructed, given the sparser kampita gamaka notes and profuse straighter notes and the pace set by the madhyama kala sahitya the composition has to be rendered in a faster kAlapramanam /tempo. It must be remembered that the 2nd kalam phrases must be rendered with felicity on the veena and that would be the benchmark optimal tempo that would be appropriate for the composition.  And off course the rendering has to be taut so that one doesn’t get breathless while rendering the madhyama kala sahitya portion.

Presented next is a slower & sedate edition of the composition together with a narrative by Vidushi Gayathri Girish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cymA-Zy6yfA

 With great respect it has to be mentioned that this pace of rendering/ kAlapramAnam appears dragged and not sitting well with the composition. If rendered slowly, given the preponderance of straight notes, one has to depart from the given notation in the SSP by rendering quite a few of the said notes/phrases with a prolonged kampita gamaka in order to keep the rendering on an even keel.

The composition needs to be rendered in what Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli would call as the madhyama-kAlapramAnam, in contrast to the slower vilamba kAlam or the still faster dhruta kala, the basal speed of rendering of a composition. The innate kAlapramAnam native to a raga or a composition is an aspect which has to be considered in the case.

The above 30 min summary ( in Tamil or Tanglish) of the aspect of kAlapramAnam of a raga or of a composition and how one needs to be aware, is a compulsory must hear and I would greatly commend the same for hearing.

Sriraga like Atana is innately suitable for madhyamakala rendering and further given the construct of the composition and the reasons I have provided hereinabove, the tad faster rendering is the most optimal and appropriate for this composition.

CONCLUSION:

I conclude this blog post with the rendering of a delectable tanam in Sri raga by the renowned Vaineeka Mysore Doraiswamy Iyengar in this YouTube audio recording starting at 44:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rUOMv5UJuc&t=117s

Attention is invited as to how he starts the Sri raga tanam on the prolonged rishabha note. He renders the tanam in the known sequence of Natta, Gaula, Arabhi, Varali, Sri the so called ghana raga pancakam followed by Kedaram as well, which is part of the dviteeya ghana raga panchakam.

It is hoped that performers and students of music would stay cognizant of the subtle nuances of ragas and of our musical traditions such as beginning a raga unambiguously on its jiva svara( for example by intoning the rishabha in Sriraga) or by using the dhaivatha note therein only once in deference to sampradaya, even while reserving their spirit of innovation and discovery within the four corners of established tradition.

References:

  1. Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (Telugu Original 1906) – Tamil edition published by the Madras Music Academy (1961) along with the Anubandha – Pages 445-456 of the 2006 Edition of Vol II and Pages 1203-1208 of the 2006 Edition of Vol V. The English version of the original Telugu edition is available online here: Link
  2.  Ragalakshana Sangraha –Dr Hema Ramanathan (2004) – Published by Dr Ramanathan – pp 1326-1341
  3. The Tyagaraja Cult in Tamil Nadu- Dr Rajeshwari Ghose (1996)- Published by Motilal Banarasidass Publishers P Ltd -ISBN-10: 81-208-1391-x or ISBN-13: 978-8120813915

    FOOT NOTES:

  1. ALPA PRAYOGAS OR RARE USAGE

The ‘alpa’ dhaivatha usage of Sriraga is reminiscent of the ‘alpa’ rishabha usage in the raga Hindolavasanta, which we saw in an earlier blog post. The feature was also highlighted in the case of raga Yamuna Kalyani were the suddha madhyama (M1) note is fleetingly used via the Gm1RS prayoga as seen in Dikshitar’s ‘Jambupate Mampahi’ which again was dealt with in an earlier blog post.

Alpa prayogas were probably a performance technique, which probably made its way to the grammar of the raga and which was devised or intended to produce a proverbial ‘Aha’ moment to a listener during the course of a performance. A discerning listener, who being aurally satiated by the raga svarupa with the conventional or regular notes and prayogas of the raga, during the performance suddenly encounters the supposedly rare foreign note, rendered by way of an alpa prayoga, providing a sensory jolt. While we see the tradition sanctified alpa prayoga usage in the exemplars – Sriraga, Hindolavasanta and Yamuna Kalyani, from a modern perspective as we see in practice, the raga Atana is a case in point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Muijzy7SoI

Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi as a prelude to Tyagaraja’s ‘Ela Nee daya’ first embarks on a raga vinyasa of the raga Atana parking herself firmly within the traditional bounds of the raga, from 0.29 to 2.33. Mark how pithily without repetition she paints the picture of the raga and rightly concludes it at the tara sadja, as this raga best blossoms forth in the upper reaches of the octave. From 2.34 – 4.14 of the clipping, Sangita Kalanidhi M S Gopalakrishnan(?), her accompanist on the concert embarks on his vinyasa. And at 3.49 he injects the tAra antara gandhara, explicitly for that fleeting moment to produce that contrast in a raga which sports a more oscillated sadharana gandhara, despite being categorized under Melas 28 or 29. It has to be mentioned that the raga and its lakshana is yet another worthy subject matter for a serious blog post.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & SAFE HARBOUR STATEMENT:

The renderings provided through YouTube links as exemplars are the exclusive intellectual property of the artistes concerned. The same has been utilized here strictly on a non-commercial   basis, under fair use for study & research, fully acknowledging their rights and that no part of it may be copied, reproduced or otherwise dealt without the consent or permission of the artistes concerned or the IP holders thereof.