Viribhoni and The musical canvas of Bhairavi

Ravi Rajagopalan

Viribhoni in Bhairavi :

Adiyappayya’s monumental classic in Bhairavi is found notated in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini and in the Sangita Sarvartha Sara Sangrahamu, the 1885 edition of the work of Veena Ramanujacharya. The varna in its complete format has 4 ettugada svaras apart from a sizable chunk of sahitya called anubandha, which must be rendered after the last ettugada svara. Convention has it that once the anubandha is rendered the varnam rendering is concluded by rendering the anupallavi, the muktayi svara and finally the pallavi, thus marking a logical conclusion in terms of the lyrics as well. The SSP gives the complete text including the anubandha as well. Before we do a deep dive into this composition, a few points stand out as to the sahitya/text of this varna.

  1. The following are the old musical texts which provide the notation/text of this great composition:
    1. Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini of Subbarama Dikshitar(1904) – SSP for short.
    2. Sangeetha Sarvaartha Saara sangrahamu of Veena Ramanujacarya (1885) – SSSS for short
    3. Manuscripts of the Tanjore Sarasvathi Mahal Library and of Nagasvara maestro Nagapattinam Veerasvami Pillai as documented by Dr B M Sundaram in his work Varna Svarajathi
    4. Notation as published by Prof S Sambamoorthi in his book
  2. The sahitya as given in the SSP consists of the pallavi, anupallavi, muktayi svara, carana/ettugada refrain with 4 ettugada svaram sets and anubandha.
  3. The third ettugada svara set is given by Subbarama Dikshitar in 2 formats with the footnote that the second format is the way in which expert singers sing the ettugada svaras.
  4. Earlier texts such as the Sangita Sarvaartha Saara Sangrahamu & the manuscripts in Tanjore Sarasvathi Mahal Library  provide sahitya for the muktayi svaras and for the ettugada svaras, while the SSP does not provide the sahitya so. Given this, we are unsure if Adiyappayya himself composed the sahitya for the muktayi svara section and the ettugada svaras and if it was a latter day addition. Usually only cauka varnas are invested with sahitya for the muktayi and ettugada svaras and its indeed rare that a tana varna has such sahitya ( another example that can be pointed out here is the Balahamsa varna of Subbarama Dikshitar “Sri rajadhiraja” featured in an earlier blog post on Ramanathapuram Bhaskara Setupati.

Very many renditions of this composition in Bhairavi exists. As one can observe, modern performers present only the sahitya of the pallavi, anupallavi and the ettugada Pallavi/carana/refrain of this composition, excluding the 3rd ettugada svara and also the anubandha as found in the SSP. In this section, I seek to present two unique renditions of this varna:

First is Vidushi Sowmya rendering the varna together with the sahitya for the muktayi svaras and the 3 caranas. This rendering is part of a live concert released commercially by Rajalakshmi Audio as an album called “Maiyyal”. Presented below is a brief clip/excerpt of her rendering the sahitya for the muktayi svara. The SSP does not document the sahitya for the muktayi svaras. Its is found documented by Prof Sambamoorthy in his work ‘A Practical Course in Karnatic Music’ ( Book III, Tamil, Pages 78-81, 2007 Edition, published by The Indian Music Publishing House, Chennai 600014). As pointed out earlier one does wonder if the sahitya was a latter day addition or whether it was part and parcel of the original composition !

Clip 2 : Vidushi Sowmya sings the muktayi svara sahitya in this excerpt

Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli is one rare performer who sings the composition completely as found in the SSP covering the 4 ettugada svaras and the anubandha sahitya. In the clip below she presents Adiyappaya’s magnum opus as the opener for her Music Academy concert from the the year 2000 & thoughtfully so did the veteran do so for that was the her Sangita Kalanidhi Concert ! The clipping below is from a recently released rendering of hers from an album.

Clip 3 : Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli presents “Viribhoni”

The musical worth of this composition, the history of the raga Bhairavi and its delineation in this piece de resistance of Adiyappayya merits a seperate and indepth blog post.

Viribhoni and The Musical Canvas of Bhairavi:

The musical contours of Bhairavi as painted by Adiyappayya in this varna is of a truly epic proportion, encompassing the entire landscape of the raga in a nutshell, probably rivaled perhaps by Syama Sastri’s svarajathi. A look at the notation of this composition by Subbarama Dikshitar raises questions as to the raga lakshana of Bhairavi. Its worth looking into it before we delve deep into the Bhairavi of “Viribhoni”. And even before jumping into SSP, lets take a look at the antiquity of Bhairavi and its lakshana as it existed in the past and documented by the musicologists of the past.

The Treatment of Bhairavi in Musicological Texts:

A look at musicological texts to ascertain the antiquity of Bhairavi and of the D2 usage in Bhairavi would yield the following observations:

  1. Considered a direct derivative of the ancient sadja grama, writers ranging from Parsvadeva, Sarangadeva, Locana Kavi & others up to the 16th century grant pre-eminence to Bhairavi as a purva-prasiddha mela. Ramamatya, Govinda Dikshitar, Venkatamakhi, Shahaji and Tulaja – all deal with Bhairavi in their respective works. Somanatha is perhaps the only writer who has not documented this raga.
  2. Its the consensus opinion of almost all these writers that Bhairavi was a great raga ( Ramamatya calls it an uttama raga) and was sampurna.
  3. Curiously enough while all the other svaras are same, different writers have documented Bhairavi with different dhaivathas or in other words assign it D1 or D2.
    • Vidyaranya’s (circa 1350 AD) Bhairavi which was one of his 15 melas sported both D1 and D2.
    • Locana Kavi’s (who came much later )Bhairavi had D2 only and it was Kapi or our modern Karaharapriya as is.
  4. The placement of Bhairavi mela has been either under Sriraga mela ( Ramamatya in his Svaramelakalanidhi and Sadragacandrodaya for example) sporting D2 therefore or as a mela itself ( Tulaja & Venkatamakhi for example and sporting D1) or under the 20th mela ( Muddu Venkatamakhi – Narireetigaula, Govinda – Narabhairavi) with D1.
  5. According to Prof SRJ none of these older works make a formal mention of D2 usage in Bhairavi and asserts not withstanding the absence of a formal reference, Bhairavi as practiced must have been bashanga only, in the modern sense of the term. According to him Subbarama Dikshitar is the first musical authority to formally acknowledge the usage of pancashruthi (D2) dhaivatha in Bhairavi. In the SSP, the raga lakshana shloka of Muddu Venkatamakhin for Bhairavi has been given which states that pancashruti dhaivatha (that is chatushruthi dhaivatha for us) is employed at places in this raga. Probably one should credit Muddu Venkatamakhin rather than Subbarama Dikshitar himself for making the formal reference.
  6. However one does find that Govinda Dikshitar in his Sangita Sudha mentions that Bhairavi takes D2 (Sangita Sudha – pages 209 to 211)

Thus Subbarama Dikshitar or Muddu Venkatamakhin can probably be only next to Govinda Dikshitar to provide the first documented authority for D2 usage. It still leaves us with the question of the melodic variation of the Bhairavi found in the SSP and the modern Bhairavi one hears today which has its roots in this density of D2 usage.

Modern musicological texts give the arohana/avarohana of Bhairavi as SRGMPD2NS/SND1PMGRS under mela/raaganga 20 ( Natabhairavi/Narireetigaula). The key point to note is that it is sampurna in the modern connotation of the term and is marked by sequential progression of its svaras in the arohana & avarohana. Given the dominance of D1 its probably put under mela 20 as a bashanga janya, but in fairness it is a purva prasiddha raga much older than the Melakarta/ragaanga scheme.

Subbarama Dikshitar is his SSP has dealt with the raga & its lakshana very elaborately and succinctly concludes by stating that the tana varna of Adiyappayya and the kritis of Muthusvami Dikshitar are the repositories of the raga lakshana of Bhairavi.

SSP’s Bhairavi:

The Bhairavi as documented by Subbarama Dikshitar in SSP as one would observe, uses the chatusruti dhaivatha very sparingly. Attention is invited not just to the Dikshitar compositions but also this ata tala varna and the Syama Sastri composition (the so called Svarajathi, which it isn’t in the true sense of the term) ‘Amba Kamakshi’. Throughout the notations of all the compositions chatusruthi dhaivatha is found notated XX times in Viribhoni and YY times in Amba Kamakshi. Subbarama Dikshitar in his commentary on Bhairavi is very categorical and he says that chatusruthi dhaivatha occurs only in the phrases: PD/ND2Ns, ND2Ns and NsD2Ns. All other dhaivathas are suddha dhaivathas only. In the context of modern Bhairavi the usage of D2 or chaturshruti dhaivata (Subbarama Dikshitar calls it pancashruti dhaivatha) is much more liberal. For example in the said phrase PDND2Ns even the first dhaivatha will be D2 while according to Subbarama Dikshitar it should be D1.

One other point to notice here is that according to Subbarama Dikshitar the D2 is ‘always’ flanked (on either sides by the nishadha). The implication is that the note D2 can be entered & exited only through the nishada. One cannot land into the D2 note via pancama or any other note. As in the case of many other (bashanga) ragas in the asumpurna mela scheme, its not the note D2 which is per se used. It’s the motif ND2Ns which is the unit which should be used as it. Rather than D2, the svara per se, the building block is the murccana ND2Ns, which brings in the D2 usage in Bhairavi. This is not seen in modern Bhairavi as one can land up in D2 from pancama, as in the prayoga PD2Ns.

On the other hand, the modern version of Bhairavi sports the chatushruthi dhaivatha in all aroha passages on to nishada and tara sadja such as PDNs or sNDNs or PNDNs and also in greater concentration in the composition as a whole, whereas it is to the contrary in the older Bhairavi.

Which leaves us with one interesting question as to when did the archaic Bhairavi (of the SSP) transform itself into the modern version. Subbarama Dikshitar makes no mention of the same in his footnotes to the raga, as he does in the case of ragas like Anandabhairavi for example, where he opines as to the usage of the D2 svara. And so the question remains as it is.

The review of the evidence we have this far yields us a set of observations:

  1. In the run up to the modern Bhairavi there must have been perhaps a set of older versions of Bhairavi, which underwent metamorphosis to get to the modern form of what one hears today.
  2. First probably was the old Bhairavi which was more or less Natabhairavi (with full D1 usage) but perhaps having some D2 usage (on the authority of Govinda Dikshitar). It sported even prayogas such as SGGM (refer to the gitam probably of Muddu Venkatamakhi, found in the SSP) or SGM (this murccana is given by Tulaja in his Saramruta).
  3. The second one was the Sri raga mela version which was perhaps more like our modern day Karaharapriya. This is found documented in works like Locana Kavi’s Raga Tarangini. It is difficult to divine if indeed these D2 versions also sported suddha dhaivatha.
  4. Next is the Bhairavi that Subbarama Dikshitar outlines in SSP as notated through the compositions therein. It had predominantly suddha dhaivatha with sparing use of chatushruthi dhaivatha. The prayogas found in the older Bhairavi such as SGGM or SGM are not seen in this edition of Bhairavi. While the suddha dhaivatha can be a nyasa svara, that is – it can be a final resting point for murccanas, the catushruti dhaivatha can never be so, although a murccana can start off ( graha svara) with the catushruthi dhaivatha ( vide the notation of the Dikshitar composition ‘Cintayamam’ in the SSP). The usage of D2 is restricted to the murccanas as specified in the SSP.
  5. Finally we have the modern version of Bhairavi with a much denser usage of chatushruthi dhaivatha encompassing usage in all aroha passages/murccanas ending with nishada or leading to tara sadja such as PDNs .

And so two questions that remain with us now are:

  1. Can the modern Bhairavi and the Bhairavi notated in the SSP, be reconciled or are they truly different? On the face of it they do appear different as evident in the case of the prayoga PDNs which is not notated as PD2Ns in the SSP, while current day renderings of Bhairavi sport only PD2NS.
  2. What is the admissible density of D2 usage in a composition, given that we have the notation given in SSP?

The Mystery of the PDNs of Bhairavi:

To understand this vexatious issue of D2 usage in Bhairavi and reconciling with SSP, a deep dive is warranted. The set of evidences or authorities that would prove useful to us in this exercise:

  1. The Proceedings of the Expert Committee of the Music Academy of the year 1938 when the point of admissibility of D2 in Bhairavi was explicitly discussed.
  2. The commentary of Sangita Kalanidhi Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer on the raga lakshana of Bhairavi and its comparison with the raga Manji found documented in the Journal of the Music Academy.
  3. The commentary on the raga Bhairavi by Prof S R Janakiraman documented in two of his works/publications.

Experts Committee Discussion on the Raga lakshana of Bhairavi

Discussion of the raga lakshana of Bhairavi by the Experts Committee of the Music Academy: During the annual conference proceedings of the year 1938 (actually on 27-Dec-1938), the raga lakshana of Bhairavi was discussed. The experts who took part in the discussion that day included the titans of that era, a veritable roll call of musicologists/musicians- Harikesanallur Muthiah Bagavathar, Musiri Subramanya Iyer, P S Krishnasvami Iyer, Jalatharangam Ramanaiah Chetty, Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer, Syama Sastri (the great grandson of the Trinitarian), Sabhesa Iyer, Vasudevachar, T V Subba Rao, Umayalpuram Venkatarama Iyer, M S Ramasvami Iyer, Lakshmana Pillai amongst others. On that day incidentally they resolved to discuss just one aspect of Bhairavi i.e admissibility of D2 or chatushruti dhaivatha in Bhairavi. The views as recorded by some of these titans who in turn had learnt from the greats of yet another past era is worth reviewing:

According to Sabhesa Iyer, Musiri Subramanya Iyer, Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer and Jalatarangam Ramaniah Chetti: D2 occurs only in the prayoga DNS and all other prayogas should sport only D1. Sabhesa Iyer added an additional caveat that the shadja should be elongated. Also according to T V Subba Rao the prayoga ND2M was admissible.

According to Lakshmana Pillai: NDN prayoga sported both the dhaivathas

According to T K Jayarama Iyer, Vasudevacar and Umayalpuram Venkatarama Iyer – When the nishada is short then the accompanying dhaivatha is D1 and when the nishada is elongated and it would be D2.

After deliberating at length, the Conference finally resolved that:

  • In the Arohanam – In the phrase, DNs when the Sa is long, then D2 occurred. In all other aroha phrases only D1 occurred.
  • In the Avarohanam – Only D1 occurs

Summary: The phrase D2Ns is now admittedly a correct prayoga, which also encompasses as a sub set Subbarama Dikshitar’s ND2Ns and PND2Ns prayogas. Obviously PD2Ns is much larger in scope. Also the experts do not seem to have taken cognizance of the SSP during their discussions.

Parking this evidence, aside for a moment, let’s review the next evidence as presented by Sangita Kalanidhi Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer.

Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer’s take on Bhairavi :

In an article published in the JMA, Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer considers musical history and also some practical expositional aspects to dissect the raga lakshana of Bhairavi. According to him, in some musical texts, Bhairavi was placed as a janya of Sri raga, such as Locana Kavi’s Raga Tarangini. So technically the Bhairavi of Locana Kavi resembled modern day Karaharapriya. This probably was a root reason for D2 getting associated with the modern Bhairavi scale in the first place which also started using D1 as well. Further due to the vadi-samvadi nature of some of the notes and tendency to intone D2 vocally with felicity/naturally in phrases such as MPDNS or RGMPDNS, rather than D1, those phrases in Bhairavi naturally tended to take D2 instead of D1. Additionally the mela Bhairavi (in Sangita Ratnakara) seems to have been vakra sampurna and latter during and after Venkatamakhi’s days it became krama sampurna perhaps giving leeway to the controversy of when D2 occurs.

It may not be out of place to point out here that Prof SRJ also alludes to the multiple versions of the Tyagaraja’s composition “Cetulara Sringaramu” being rendered in Natabhairavi, Bhairavi and Karaharapriya on account of the confusion as to which dhaivatha to use. The advent of Karaharapriya as a formal scale during late 18th/early 19th century seems to have caused further confusion only.

The 2 sets on evidences we considered as above do not seem to take us any forward in terms of reconciling the usage of D2 as one sees in practice and the notation in the SSP. Venkatarama Iyer’s point on vocal felicity in rendering PD2Ns instead of PD1Ns is a fair justification for incorporating that in Bhairavi. In fact in the SSP, when one looks at the arohana of ragas under mela 20 (to the exclusion of Bhairavi and its close kin Manji), its very obvious that there is not even a single raga sporting a lineal PD1Ns prayoga/murccana as a part of their scale, lending credence to Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer’s argument that D1 cannot be felicitously rendered in the linear phrase PD1NS.

On the strength of this observation itself we can say that PDNs in Bhairavi could not be PD1Ns. Then is it PD2Ns? Did Subbarama Dikshitar err in not marking this dhaivatha in PDNs outrightly as PD2Ns.

The third & final set of evidence is the analysis of the ragalakshana of Bhairavi by Prof S R Janakiraman in two of his publications offers us some help on this point.

According to Prof SRJ, the usage of D2 occurs only in the following prayogas:

  • pA..dhAnI..sA – every svara being elongated, the dhaivata to be used here is D2. In this prayoga, one needs to prolong on the pancama, intone the dhaivata as an anusvara, quickly intone the nishada in a dheerga kampita (elongated and oscillated) fashion. This is the ‘only’ phrase which Sabhesa Iyer says is permitted to have D2 in Bhairavi (vide the Experts Committee deliberations referred to above). According to Prof SRJ even in this case the dhaivatha intoned in the phase is “insignificantly” chatushruti in character ( which may perhaps be why Subbarama Dikshitar chose to exclude this phrase from the list of permissible phrases where D2 can be used)
  • PDNDNs, sNDNs and NsDNs (all these 3 postulated by Subbarama Dikshitar to have D2) and according to Prof SRJ, the dhaivatha is “decisively” chatushruti in these prayogas in Bhairavi.

Save for the above,D2 occurs nowhere else. Attention is invited to the nature of the dhaivatha intonation.

A note on other murccanas/phrases/prayogas is required here:

  • PDNDN – Here the dhaivata is technically neither D1 nor D2. It’s probably a trishanku dhaivatha note. If the phrase is sNDNs, the dhaivatha will be D2, according to Subbarama Dikshitar.
  • PDNDP – Both the dhaivathas are suddha dhaivathas only
  • Also its wise avoid having D2 as nyasa as in the phrasing pA…DnI..dhA and RnidhA. Instead nishada can be used as a nyasa: pA..DNDnI.. and rNDnI…

Prof S R J goes on to add and I quote him verbatim:

“….It may finally be concluded that the jurisdiction of the raga Bhairavi rendered without the so called chatushruti dhaivatha but rendered only with suddha dhaivatha has got its own intrinsic beauty. Such jurisdiction ranges from mandhara nishada to madhya nishadha. Only when Bhairavi shoots up above the tara shadja, there arises the compulsion of the inclusion of the intriguing chatushruti dhaivatha. Most of this must be apprehended from practice….”

“…The great Syama Sastri has very cleverly and explicitly managed to ward off the so called chatushruthi dhaivatha in Bhairavi in the 2 caranas of his ‘so-called’ svarajathi in Bhairavi, beginning with the words ‘Kamakshi Amba’. In the two caranas ‘pAdakamulanu’ and ‘kalushahArini’, there is absolutely no occasion for the inclusion of the intriguing chatushruthi dhaivatha. Why? Even in the caranas commencing with shadja, gandhara and madhyama, the inclusion of chatushruthi dhaivatha looks insignificant, but in the carana commencing with the rishabha, it goes like:

” ni  ri  sa ni dha, ni, ga ri” ( svaras for the sahitya Vidhuvadana Mayamma)

The dhaivatha here should invariably be chatushruti dhaivatha as endorsed by Subbarama Dikshitar. In the remaining caranas commencing with nishada and tara shadja, the dhaivatha occurring in the ascending phrases as ‘pa da ni sa’ -could be dhaivatha of dubious nature…..”

<<TO be completed>>

Let’s practically look at the Professor’s assertion on the relevant carana portions of the Bhairavi svarajathi of Syama Sastri. In this excerpt here, the veteran, Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer accompanied by Vidvan V V Subramanyam on the violin and Vidvan Ramnad Raghavan on the mrudangam, renders the 2 carana lines, from a 1962 Concert.

Srinivasa Iyer renders portions of the Bhairavi composition  <<<>>>>

Prof SRJ renders the svarajati <<>>>>

A practical exposition of Bhairavi can be seen in this video clipping, wherein Prof SRJ delineates Bhairavi. Attention is invited

<<Youtube link to part 1 & 2 of Bhairavi alapana of Prof SRJ>>

To sum up:

  1. Adiyappayya’s magum opus is a veritable lesson in Bhairavi, the Bhairavi that Subbarama Dikshitar has outlined in the SSP.
  2. Subbarama Dikshitar has most probably and rightly so said that D2 is very explicit “only” in the phrases PDNDNs, sNDNs and NsDNs.
  3. The dhaivatha used in the phrase PDNs should be rendered as an anusvara and is strictly not D2. And should not be rendered expressly so by emphasizing on the D2 svarasthana. Perhaps it is on that premise that for the phrase PDNs, Subbarama Dikshitar did not mark the dhaivatha as chatushruti. But it does not mean that one should intone it as a regular D2. We should well remember that notations cannot be precise and grace notes/anusvaras and embellishments which go to ornament our music cannot be notated to the tee. The harmonics of rendering of PDNs is an additional practical input for us as evident from Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer’s observation and also the practical insight one can get from analyzing the arohana murrcanas of mela 20 ragas documented by Muddu Venkatamakhin.
  4. Also the great composers structured their compositions to work around the dhaivatha note occurring in progression as one moves from the pancama towards the nishada, as done adroitly by the great Syama Sastri.
  5. As observed by Sangita Kalanidhi Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer, the D2 would invariably creep in the phrase PDNs due to harmonics. Composers may well take note of this and avoid embedding an express PD2Ns in their compositions, stressing on the dhaivatha.
  6. D2 should never be a nyasa and was never a nyasa for all composers of yore. Modern composers must do well to structure the musical fabric of the Bhairavi in their compositions to avoid D2 being denser or being nyasa as well.

That said, Subbarama Dikshitar’s notation in SSP of Bhairavi in sum the base for modern Bhairavi and its raga lakshana.

All this goes to show that Bhairavi is thus just another example of how evolving our music is in terms of lakshana.

Footnote 1:

It’s my surmise that the family of ragas Bhairavi, Manji, Huseni, Anandabhairavi and Mukhari which share a common melodic content/material and a common origin (desi), went on an evolutionary cycle as a group, undergoing changes centered around the dhaivatha svara to acquire individual melodic identities, ending up much like how we see them today. This melodic evolutionary process is also similarly witnessed in the other group of ragas Karnataka Kapi, Durbar, Nayaki, Sahana, Kanada and Andhali wherein we witness the morphing of the gandhara svara as a part of the metamorphosis to evolve a distinct melodic identity by each raga.

Foot Note 2:

It goes to the credit of Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer, for having made the 3 priceless compositions (svarajathis of Syama Sastri in Todi, Bhairavi & Yadukulakambhoji) a regular place in the modern concert fare. One can invariably find one of the svarajathis being rendered by him in many of his recitals which not only provides the right balance & mix but also lends great dignity to the recital. The mere rendition of these compositions sans a raga alapana, neraval or kalpana svara would satiate a listener, for such is the grandeur and majesty of these 3 gems of Syama Sastri.

It’s also a matter of controversy whether these three compositions can be labeled as ‘svarajathi’ as they do not fulfill the requirements of a ‘svarajathi’. Nevertheless I have chosen to use the term svarajathi to avoid confusion and for sake of uniformity.

Foot Note 3:

The asampurna mela scheme ragas under mela 20 as documented by Subbarama Dikshitar in SSP do no sport the PD1Ns as a part of their arohana at all. The arohana murrcanas of the different ragas are as under:

Narireetigaula : SRGMNDPNNS ; Hindolam : SGMNDNS ; Nagagandhari : SRGMPDNS – The ‘official’ sancara is only DPNs or DMPNs not PDNS & Subbarama Dikshitar provides that in the footnote. Anandabhairavi : SGGMPDPsNs ; Ghanta : SGRGMPNDNs ;Margahindolam : PMDNs Hindolavasanta: SGGMPDs ; Abheri : SMGMPs ;Navaratnavilasam : SRGMPDPs ; Ahiri : SRSGMPDNs- However both PD2Ns & PD1Ns are permissible ; Dhanyasi : SGMPNs ; Gopikavasantham – SRGMPDPNNs – However Dikshitar uses only Ps avoiding both dhaivatha and nishada in aroha passages;  Mukhari – SRMPDs – Arohana has only D2. Huseni which can be considered a kin is placed by Subbarama Dikshitar under Sriraga mela taking D2 predominantly.

One can as well conclude with the evidence of this  dataset as well that the asampuna mela scheme had at its core aesthetics coupled with harmonics as an existential pre-requisite for a raga, rather than adopting the melakartha model of automatic generation of ragas through permutation combination of notes under a given parent mela(kartha). And regrettably today this model has become the very basis of our music and its grammar.

References:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Contd. Part 2)

Categories: Raga