Re: swamy - Hindu temples to Hindus

by truthbetold Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:27 pm

This thread is an example of the.kind of issues that arise if Hindus take over Hindu temples. there is no such thing as a typical Hindu. neck there is no such thing as a typical Brahmins.
can Hindus get their differences into a working philosophy? can they sit across table and arrive at a working compromise?
will orthodoxy vs tradition vs progressive streams of Hinduism co exist?
we have not even touched on the other controversial subject, what to do with temple donations?
i prefer discussions as above to bring controversies into open rather than taking the approach of isolationism where discussion with other side is blasphemy.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:12 pm

i'd like the find out the truth about how the dikshitars came to be the custodians of the thillai temple. however, the original construction and the people responsible for it are well documented in history. it was aruLmozhi varman's (aka rAja rAjan) grandfather, parAnthaka chOzhan. rAja rAjan himself improved it and his sister kundavai donated much wealth to the temple. the structures themselves show evidence of chOzhA architecture.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'd like the find out the truth about how the dikshitars came to be the custodians of the thillai temple. however, the original construction and the people responsible for it are well documented in history. it was aruLmozhi varman's (aka rAja rAjan) grandfather, parAnthaka chOzhan. rAja rAjan himself improved it and his sister kundavai donated much wealth to the temple. the structures themselves show evidence of chOzhA architecture.

Raja Raja died 1000 years ago but the Dikshitars are considered to have been custodians of this temple for 1,500 years. The reason why portions of the temple show evidence of Chola architecture was because the Cholas added some structures onto an already existing temple.

The Dikshitars would not have dared to make it difficult for Raja Raja to obtain tamil hymns from them if they had not been custodians of the temple for a considerable period of time because of which they knew Raja Raja would not harm them.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:52 pm

rAja rAjan was a siva bhaktan himself. one of the titles that the saivite saints gave him is sivapAdasEkaran. there was no way he was going to inflict any harm on some powerless priests who lived off his and his sister's largesse. the dikshitars had nothing to fear from this magisterial king.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:17 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:aside: i am not sure if the koran is actually read in tamil in TN mosques, but there is a rich body of islamic religious poetry dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth century written in tamil. one of these is the sIrApurANam, a life of the prophet, written in a style closely mimicking and in the same meter as the kambarAmAyaNam.

The Koran is never read in any other language anywhere in a mosque.

you may be right. and based on what i know about hinduism in TN, hinduism is very ecumenical and does not have this sort of rigidity that seems to be the characteristic of abrahamic faiths like islam. i mean why would someone be required to memorize and recite something they don't even understand as the price of admission? given that, i wonder why some hindus here desire that sort of rigidity in their own religion.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm

to me the greatest treasure that hinduism has imbued in my life are not the ritualistic tradition that i was born into as a brahmin, but carnatic music, religious tamil poetry, and the purANams that i have read and enjoyed in poetic form in tamil. these are things that move me and have enriched my life. esoteric liturgy in a languge that i only have a passing acquaintance with as a symbolic nod to my ancestry, and have difficulty comprehending is no way the defining tenets of the religion. i am sure millions of people all across india feel the same way.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:42 pm

one more general observation i have about all this. many of the people strenuously insisting on exclusive sanskrit liturgy in temple worship have neither read the original sanskrit texts nor the more accessible literature in their own languages! however, they feel compelled to have an opinion about it! maybe because they feel that any loosy goosiness in hinduism leaves it at a competitive disadvantage compared to the more rigid abrahamic faiths.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:22 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:one more general observation i have about all this. many of the people strenuously insisting on exclusive sanskrit liturgy in temple worship have neither read the original sanskrit texts nor the more accessible literature in their own languages! however, they feel compelled to have an opinion about it! maybe because they feel that any loosy goosiness in hinduism leaves it at a competitive disadvantage compared to the more rigid abrahamic faiths.

As Kinnera has said if a temple has a tradition of prayers being said in tamil it should continue to do so, and if it has a tradition of prayers being said in sanskrit it should continue as well. there is no question of any competitive disadvantage if existing traditions are continued.

just to put things in perspective the songs of the Rig Veda are 2,500 years old. the fact that these songs continue to used in the liturgy of many temples all across India is quite marvelous.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:23 pm

My favorite prayer-song in honor of Lord Shiva is in sanskrit:

This song is believed to have been written by Ravana who was said to have been a great Shiva bhakta.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:My favorite prayer-song in honor of Lord Shiva is in sanskrit:

This song is believed to have been written by Ravana who was said to have been a great Shiva bhakta.

Max, did you experience any emotional response when you heard this song ?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:

Max, did you experience any emotional response when you heard this song ?

i listened to it as background without paying too much attention to the words, but it seems to be a general invocation. i responded to the pathos filled music more. have to say rashmun, not a huge fan of pt. jasraj any longer. there was a time when i listened to nothing but him.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:59 pm

and since we are talking about the thillai (chidambaram) temple, here is one of those canonical carnatic compositions in the raga poorvi kalyANi by nIlakantha sivan. it's usually rendered as a main piece in a concert with an elaborate raga AlApana and is also a favorite in the BN circuit. it features vocalization of dance rhythms as part of the composition.

it has delightful onomatopoeic descriptions of the sounds of the cosmic dance.

pAdi madi jyOti paLir paLIr ena pAda silamboli galIr galIr ena

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:01 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, did you experience any emotional response when you heard this song ?

i listened to it as background without paying too much attention to the words, but it seems to be a general invocation. i responded to the pathos filled music more. have to say rashmun, not a huge fan of pt. jasraj any longer. there was a time when i listened to nothing but him.

it is not a general invocation; it is a song full of pathos. Having read sanskrit poetry in english translation, i am very confident that this is a poor translation but this is all that is available to me for this song for now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Tandava_Stotram

i am not particularly fond of Pandit Jasraj; it is just that his rendering of the Shiva Tandava Stotram is the best i have heard so far.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:05 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:and since we are talking about the thillai (chidambaram) temple, here is one of those canonical carnatic compositions in the raga poorvi kalyANi by nIlakantha sivan. it's usually rendered as a main piece in a concert with an elaborate raga AlApana and is also a favorite in the BN circuit. it features vocalization of dance rhythms as part of the composition.

it has delightful onomatopoeic descriptions of the sounds of the cosmic dance.

The song i gave is also about the cosmic dance of Shiva. More specifically, it the about the dance of death: the Tandava dance. Here is a question: When Shiva was dancing the Tandava dance he had gone out of control and his dance was creating havoc on heaven and earth. What happened because of which he calmed down and came to his senses again?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:08 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

it has delightful onomatopoeic descriptions of the sounds of the cosmic dance.

pAdi madi jyOti paLir paLIr ena pAda silamboli galIr galIr ena

meaning the half moon on the head flashes paLir paLir, and the anklets go gaLir gaLir.

by Rishi Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:10 pm

Max,

Christianity is also an Abrhamic faith.

Bible has been translated in almost all the major languages in this world.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:11 pm

Max, you claim to be a brahmin, but don't seem to have even an iota of knowledge about agama sastram. As a non-brahmin, i already knew what smartha was saying. If you have no idea what he's saying, better stay away from this topic. You are jumping up and down only because tamil is involved and viewing everything with your biased mind.

Your understanding about hinduism is very limited, but you talk as if you are authority at it (your comment about hinduism and capital punishment the other day was pretty comical).

Some unqualified moron goes into the sanctum sanctorium and starting singing something out of the norm and gets objected to it. You call the priests 'donkeys' for kicking him out. Would you allow it if someone without any qualifications to be a professor takes your dias and starts lecturing your students something off the subject or syllabus? Wont' you kick him out or report to the authorities?

You claim that carnatic music has enriched your life. With so much aversion for Sanskrit, i wonder abt the kirtanas you tried to understand and enjoyed. Most of the muthuswami dikshitulu's compositions are in sanskrit. I know i know, lately all frantic efforts are being made to compose and incorporate tamil songs into carnatic music by like minded ppl like you. good luck with that.

Here's the thing that's going to annoy you: i think most ppl do find comfortable with sanskrit as most sanskrit words are easy to understand and common in their own languages. Another advantage is that it is the thing that binds all hindus. When i go to the devi navaratri functions, we collectively sing mahishasura mardhini stotrams and lalita sahastra namams. Same with lingastaka strotams, vishnu sahasra namams,etc. The group comprises of ppl from different parts of india, but most everyone seems comfortable with those. Imagine having them in different languages and each not knowing what the other knows.

Even at the temple here, they do the group Satyanarayana puja, where all the mantras are in sanskrit and most everyone seems to follow it. How difficult is it to understand the avahayamis and samarpayamis, etc? Imagine that being in tamil or any other non-binding language!

Rashmun reiterated my main point above. I wont' say it again.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:15 pm

i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Kinnera wrote:Max, you claim to be a brahmin, but don't seem to have even an iota of knowledge about agama sastram. As a non-brahmin, i already knew what smartha was saying. If you have no idea what he's saying, better stay away from this topic. You are jumping up and down only because tamil is involved and viewing everything with your biased mind.

Your understanding about hinduism is very limited, but you talk as if you are authority at it (your comment about hinduism and capital punishment the other day was pretty comical).

Some unqualified moron goes into the sanctum sanctorium and starting singing something out of the norm and gets objected to it. You call the priests 'donkeys' for kicking him out. Would you allow it if someone without any qualifications to be a professor takes your dias and starts lecturing your students something off the subject or syllabus? Wont' you kick him out or report to the authorities?

You claim that carnatic music has enriched your life. With so much aversion for Sanskrit, i wonder abt the kirtanas you tried to understand and enjoyed. Most of the muthuswami dikshitulu's compositions are in sanskrit. I know i know, lately all frantic efforts are being made to compose and incorporate tamil songs into carnatic music by like minded ppl like you. good luck with that.

Here's the thing that's going to annoy you: i think most ppl do find comfortable with sanskrit as most sanskrit words are easy to understand and common in their own languages. Another advantage is that it is the thing that binds all hindus. When i go to the devi navaratri functions, we collectively sing mahishasura mardhini stotrams and lalita sahastra namams. Same with lingastaka strotams, vishnu sahasra namams,etc. The group comprises of ppl from different parts of india, but most everyone seems comfortable with those. Imagine having them in different languages and each not knowing what the other knows.

Even at the temple here, they do the group Satyanarayana puja, where all the mantras are in sanskrit and most everyone seems to follow it. How difficult is it to understand the avahayamis and samarpayamis, etc? Imagine that being in tamil or any other non-binding language!

Rashmun reiterated my main point above. I wont' say it again.

a) i have no aversion to sanskrit. i thoroughly enjoy MD's compositions. in fact i enjoy them more than any other composer's krithis. however, my enjoyment is more about the musical structural aspects rather than their poetic value. it is my understanding that the sanskrit he uses is actually quite simple.

b) there are no "franctic" efforts to incorporate tamil into carnatic music. tamil compositions have always been part of the body of CM. oothukkadu venkata subbaiyer who composed in tamil, telugu, and sanskrit predates the trinity by a hundred years. i don't consider CM to be an avenue for competition among languages. they are outpourings of saints, much of which was spontaneous with the probable exception of MD's compositions which i believe were carefully honed with his musical scholarship.

c) what you said did not annoy me. different folks different strokes. however, i am not going to stop myself from correcting you when you say things about temple worship, music etc. that i know to be factually incorrect.

d) what i said about ritualism etc. is my own worldview. it is as valid or invalid as the next guy's. the only person getting excited here is you.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

The background of the tandava dance is that Shiva's father in law had arranged for a feast for many people but he did not invite Shiva to this feast because he was uncomfortable with Shiva coming along with his weird followers (most of Shiva's followers or ganas have some kind of deformity for instance one may have only one eye, another could be abnormally scrawny, yet another could be abnormally obese, etc.) and Shiva himself of course is not exactly sophisticated or well dressed or charming (unlike Vishnu). When Shiva's wife Sati (who was at the time visiting her father) saw that her husband had not been invited to the feast she felt so humiliated and angry that she jumped into a fire and committed suicide. When Shiva came to know of this he rushed to the spot, picked up Sati's corpse and then started dancing the dance of death: the Tandava dance. It was such a terrible dance that there was great turbulence and upheaval in Heaven and Earth as Shiva continued to dance his terrible and angry dance of death.

The question is: How did Shiva eventually calm down and come to his senses?

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:27 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:aside: i am not sure if the koran is actually read in tamil in TN mosques, but there is a rich body of islamic religious poetry dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth century written in tamil. one of these is the sIrApurANam, a life of the prophet, written in a style closely mimicking and in the same meter as the kambarAmAyaNam.

The Koran is never read in any other language anywhere in a mosque.

you may be right. and based on what i know about hinduism in TN, hinduism is very ecumenical and does not have this sort of rigidity that seems to be the characteristic of abrahamic faiths like islam. i mean why would someone be required to memorize and recite something they don't even understand as the price of admission? given that, i wonder why some hindus here desire that sort of rigidity in their own religion.

Try telling the muslims to recite the koran in tamil, not arabic and see their reaction. If brave enough, call them donkeys for their reaction and see their further reaction. Anyone has the guts to do that?

Yes, hinduism is not at all rigid when compared to islam, but that deosn't mean that they have to passively take in all kinds of trash that is dissed at them. They do need to be assertive and take a stand whenever needed.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:31 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b) there are no "franctic" efforts to incorporate tamil into carnatic music. tamil compositions have always been part of the body of CM. oothukkadu venkata subbaiyer who composed in tamil, telugu, and sanskrit predates the trinity by a hundred years. i don't consider CM to be an avenue for competition among languages. they are outpourings of saints, much of which was spontaneous with the probable exception of MD's compositions which i believe were carefully honed with his musical scholarship.

a long time ago when usenet was the only medium available for exchanges such as these, i used to linger around a newsgroup called rec.music.indian.classical. those were the days when you could really learn something by hanging around newsgroups. here is an article written by m.v.ramana on the pre-trinity composers of TN and their contributions to carnatic music.

http://www.carnaticcorner.com/articles/pretrinity.txt

Karnatic music owes a lot to various pre-trinity composers hailing
from Tamilnadu. In my opinion their contribution to the growth and
development of Karnatic music is not adequately recognized by many.
Here I have listed a few of them along with some discussion about them
and sample compositions so that they can be added to the list of
pre-trinity composers which was under discussion a few weeks ago.
Before going any further I would like to caution readers that in much
of what I write here, the dates mentioned are subject to controversy.

Even early Tamil literature mentions music a lot. An ancient work in
Tamil literature, the tolkAppiyam, has a few references to music.
There is a lot of music related discussion in the silappadikAram (ref.
Prof. S. Ramanathan's thesis on music in the silappadikAram - Wesleyan
University). However there are no tunes surviving from this period.
Perhaps the earliest compositions we have which are set to paNNs
(equivalent to rAgAs) are the compositions of kAraikkAl ammaiyAr
(approx. 5th century AD).

Next come the composers of the tEvAram. gnAnasambandar (635-651 AD),
appar or tirunAvukkarasar (580-661 AD) and sundarar (about 700 AD). It
is said that each of them composed several thousand padigams but only
a few hundreds are available today. A few tEvArams that may be
familar to listeners of karnAtic music are sambandar's kAthalAgi
kasinthu (paNN - kausikam, equiv. to bhairavi) and appar's sotrunai
(gAndArapancamam - kEdAragauLa) and vAnanai. The original tune for
the latter is probably lost; the version sung by KVN and DKJ is in
kIravANi rAga. I have been told that this tune was set by "tOdi"
kaNNan. The viruttam that madurai maNi ayyar used to sing often -
vEyoru tOLi.. is a sambandar tEvAram.

A legend involving sambandar mentions that he composed his first song
(tOdudaiya seviyan) at the age of three - that would perhaps make him
the youngest composer in the whole world.

Many of the tEvAram tunes have been preserved to this date due to the
services of the OduvArs attached to temples. Due to the munificence of
kings like rAjarAja chOzha, they were given lands etc, thus allowing them
to continue their adherence to music.

In the post-tEvAram period came mANickavAcagar, the composer of
tiruvAcakam and tiruvempAvai, sometime in the latter half of the 9th
century AD (controversial date). In his case the original paNNs for
his songs are not available and they are usually sung in mOhanam.
According to some scholars this indicates that he predated the tEvAram
trinity.

Besides these Saivite composers, there were the vaishnavite azhvArs
whose (approximately 4000) compositions are called the nAlAyira
divyaprabandam. Some of these composers were periAzhvAr, nammAzhvAr,
tirumangaiAzhvAr and ANdAL. It is said that these compositions were
all set to paNNs and that they included some paNNs not used by
sambandhar, appar, etc, but their tunes have been lost.
(Dr.S.Ramanathan mentioned in a lec-dem of his that there are
references which mention the paNNs in which the songs of nammAzhvAr
and tirumangaiAzhvAr were sung. I have also heard him sing a pAsuram
of tirumangaiAzhvAr - paLLiyil Odi - puranErmai paNN - equiv. to
bowLi.) But at some point, the divyaprabandam came to be regarded as
the tamizh vEdam and so people stopped singing them and just recited
them. I am not too sure about these and I leave it to someone more
knowledgeable to give more info. All these divyaprabandams are
available on-line at
http://reality.sgi.com/employees/mani/prabandham.html

The music of the thEvAram and divyaprabandham had a lot of influence
on the subsequent development of musicology. For example, an important
early musical treatise is the sangIta ratnAkara. The author of this
work, nissanka sArangadEvA, studied many paNNs and wrote about them.
(ref. rangarAmAnuja ayyangAr)

There has already been a lot of discussion on the net about
aruNagirinAthar and his compositions - so I will not mention anything
about him.

One other pre-trinity composer from Tamilnadu, whose dates I am
uncertain about, is UthukADu vEnkatasubbayyar. He was perhaps the
first to compose group kritis on a certain deity worshipped at some
specific temple - something that was followed by all the members of
the trinity. An example of this is the kAmAkshi navAvarNam. One other
popular kriti of his is tAyE yashOdA in tOdi.

A few centuries later came four great composers in the 16-18th
centuries - muttutANDavar (16 century), pApanAsa mudaliAr (1650-1725),
aruNAcala kavi (1711-1779) and mArimuttA piLLai (1712-1787).

muttutANDavar was one of the architects of the kriti format as we know
it today - i.e. a piece with pallavi, anupallavi and caraNam. While
much has been said about later composers like mArgadarsi sEsha iyengAr
and their contribution to the development of this structure, the
contribution of muttutANDavar goes largely unmentioned. The tunes for
many of his kritis appear to have been lost (this may not be true for
his padams) and many of them were "re-tuned" in the early part of this
century. Some kritis of his which are famous are sEvikka vENdumayya -
AndOLikA - sung by madurai maNi ayyar and GNB, and arumarundOru -
mOhanam/kAmbOji.

muttutANDavar also composed several padams, some of which are still
popular.The late bAlasaraswati used to dance to his kamAs padam -
teruvil vArAnO. The dhanyAsi padam, ittanai tulAmbaramO, is also
often heard. He was probably the first major composer of padams and
his example was followed by several other composers such as mArimuttA
piLLai, pApanAsa mudaliAr, kavikunjara bhArati(composer of inimEl avarukkum
- bhairavi and varattum - sAvEri), vaithIswarankoil subbarama ayyar (composer
of padari varukudu - kAmbOji and ini enna pEccu - sahAnA) and ghanam
krishNa ayyar (composer of nittiraiyil - pantuvarALi and tiruvatriyUr
tyAgarAjan - atAnA). The last three were relatively later composers -
ghanam krishNa ayyar was a junior contemporary of tyAgarAjA.

Not many of the compositions of mArimuttA piLLai and papanAsa mudaliAr
have survived till today. The yadukulakAmboji piece kAlai tUkki... and
the tOdi piece ennEramum are compositions of mArimuttA piLLai. vidwAn
b. krishNamUrthy once mentioned in a lec-dem that while both these
pieces were often sung during the turn of the century, most people did
not know who composed them. pApanAsa mudaliar's compositions include
mukattai kAttiya in bhairavi and nadamAdittirintha in kAmbOji. The
latter is an example of the nindAstuti style in musical compositions
wherein the superficial meaning of the song seems to ridicule the
deity involved. This was mainly introduced by pApanAsa mudaliAr and
mArimuttA piLLai. tyAgarAjA has followed this in songs like adigi
sukhAmu - madhyamAvati.

The songs of aruNAcala kavi's rAma nAtakam are very well known and
justly famous. The music for these was composed by two of kavirAyar's
disciples, kOthandarAman and venkatarAman. But sometime around the
turn of this century, others such as ariyakudi rAmAnuja ayyangAr,
composed different tunes for these songs and the original tunes are no
longer heard. The recent net-debate about kandEn sitayai is also a
reflection of this "tampering". aruNAcala kavi's rAma nAtakam is
mentioned as gOpAlakrishNa bhArati's chief source of inspiration for
composing his magnum opus, nandanAr caritram.

Sometime between the times of the AzhvArs and nAyanmArs and
muthutAndavar et al, there were a number of simple musical pieces
composed by a group of mystics (usually 18 are listed) known as the
siddhars. The earliest siddhars lived around the 6th or 7th century AD
(sivavAkyar). Their pieces were in simple Tamil and based on folk
tunes. The famous song tAvAram edukkadi.... is a composition of
kudumbai siddhar. KVN sings this quite often.

Tamil music has also been the source of some relatively recent
(post-trinity) musical forms which have been incorporated into
Karnatic music concerts such as the kAvaDichindu and the kiLikkanni.
Both these draw heavily from folk music. The most famous composer of
kAvaDichindus is aNNAmalai reddiAr of cinnikuLam (1865-1891). The
famous chenchurutti piece, manjunIgar, which used to be sung memorably
by the late musiri subramaNya iyer among others, is a composition of
his. The late Dr.S.Ramanathan also used to regularly include
kAvaDichindus in his concerts.

The kiLikkani is a set of "love songs" addressed to Lord subramaNya.
They were composed sometime in the 19th century by subbarAyaswami of
ambAsamudram, a devout muruga bhakta and a *head constable* in the
police force. D K Pattammal and her brother, the late D K Jayaraman,
often used to sing one of these beginning with the words, vaLLikanavan
pErai, in their concerts.

A few words about the influence of Tamil music on the the modern
trinity tyAgarAjA, dIkshitar and SyAmA Sastry. (For an interesting
article on tyAgarAjA and Tamil, see S. Pasupathy's article in SRUTI
issue #55, April 1989, page 28. I thank Sri Pasupathy for this
reference as well as lots of other information/references.) All these
composers lived in tanjAvUr which has been the center for paN music
for centuries, it is highly unlikely that they would not have
regularly (if not every day) listened to tEvArams and nAyana music.
tiruvArUr being an important saivite centre and having a major temple
would certainly have attracted the best of OduvArs and nAdaswara
vidwAns. From various accounts, such as the works of u vE svAminAtha
ayyar, we know that the songs of composers like muttutANDavar etc were
quite popular till they were somewhat upstaged by the flurry of new
compositions in the late 18th and 19th centuries. It is quite natural
that the trinity would have listened to them also. Given all this, it
is perhaps ironical that composers like annamAchAryA whose
compositions were re-discovered only recently, are said to have
influenced the trinity and thus Karnatic music a lot, whereas the
influence of composers whose compositions were the prevailing ones in
the tanjAvUr region has not been mentioned at all.

To summarize, I have tried to indicate several prominent music
composers from Tamil Nadu and their contribution to Karnatic music. A
study of their influence on the development of Karnatic music leads
one to expect that the quote of Isaac Newton about seeing further
because he was standing on the shoulders of giants would have befitted
any of the relatively modern composers! It is but appropriate that we
recognize atleast some of the contributions of these early composers.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:33 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:aside: i am not sure if the koran is actually read in tamil in TN mosques, but there is a rich body of islamic religious poetry dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth century written in tamil. one of these is the sIrApurANam, a life of the prophet, written in a style closely mimicking and in the same meter as the kambarAmAyaNam.

The Koran is never read in any other language anywhere in a mosque.

you may be right. and based on what i know about hinduism in TN, hinduism is very ecumenical and does not have this sort of rigidity that seems to be the characteristic of abrahamic faiths like islam. i mean why would someone be required to memorize and recite something they don't even understand as the price of admission? given that, i wonder why some hindus here desire that sort of rigidity in their own religion.
Try telling the muslims to recite the koran in tamil, not arabic and see their reaction. If brave enough, call them donkeys for their reaction and see their further reaction. Anyone has the guts to do that?

Yes, hinduism is not at all rigid when compared to islam, but that deosn't mean that they have to passively take in all kinds of trash that is dissed at them. They do need to be assertive and take a stand whenever needed.

having all kinds of trash dissed at hinduism is a part of hinduism. It has been done since the days of the Charvakas who mocked many aspects of hinduism. Not to mention the Budha and Mahavira Jain who also criticized aspects of Hinduism. And yet Hindu philosophers always give due recognition to Budhist, Jain, and Charvaka philosophies. In fact Hinduism underwent several reforms because of the criticisms directed at it. So one should not shun criticism, rather one should welcome it. Of course criticism with malicious intent should be ignored.

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:50 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
d) what i said about ritualism etc. is my own worldview. it is as valid or invalid as the next guy's. the only person getting excited here is you.

Not excitement. There's nothing to get excited here. It's irritation. Irritation at the moorkha vitanda vaadam. I tell myself to stay away from this rut, but keep getting pulled in. Good luck to me next time!

Good night!

by Guest Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:02 pm

m v ramana wrote:The music of the thEvAram and divyaprabandham had a lot of influence
on the subsequent development of musicology. For example, an important
early musical treatise is the sangIta ratnAkara. The author of this
work, nissanka sArangadEvA, studied many paNNs and wrote about them.
(ref. rangarAmAnuja ayyangAr)

--> But the sangita ratnakara is a sanskrit text. in fact, the vast majority of Indian texts on any serious study (i.e. meant for the consumption of intellectuals and scholars and not for the masses) of anything related to aesthetics are in sanskrit.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
m v ramana wrote:The music of the thEvAram and divyaprabandham had a lot of influence
on the subsequent development of musicology. For example, an important
early musical treatise is the sangIta ratnAkara. The author of this
work, nissanka sArangadEvA, studied many paNNs and wrote about them.
(ref. rangarAmAnuja ayyangAr)

--> But the sangita ratnakara is a sanskrit text. in fact, the vast majority of Indian texts on any serious study (i.e. meant for the consumption of intellectuals and scholars and not for the masses) of anything related to aesthetics are in sanskrit.

that's fine. but you would be hard pressed to say that the current structural form and aesthetics of CM are exactly the same as what were written down in the sangIta ratnAkara. it's definitely a source text for the scalar material. just because something is in a certain language and is older does not mean that it is the final statement on the art or the science. hindustani music too claims the sangIta ratnAkarA as source material, but today we recognize the two genres as distinct and having separate and recognizable aesthetic features different from each other. the mElakarthA scheme which is foundational to carnatic music and from which all the current ragas are derived came after the sangIta ratnAkara. in fact the person who systematized it is venkatamakhin, a kannada musicologist.

the article that i posted had nothing to do with primacy which seems to be your central interest. i was simply trying to provide information on composers who wrote their compositions primarily in tamil who pre-date the trinity of thyagaraja, MD, and shyama shastri since kinnera noted that "franctic" efforts were being made to compose tamil krithis in the modern era.

by bw Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:11 am

why "franctic" and not "frantic"?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:29 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:one more general observation i have about all this. many of the people strenuously insisting on exclusive sanskrit liturgy in temple worship have neither read the original sanskrit texts nor the more accessible literature in their own languages! however, they feel compelled to have an opinion about it! maybe because they feel that any loosy goosiness in hinduism leaves it at a competitive disadvantage compared to the more rigid abrahamic faiths.

As Kinnera has said if a temple has a tradition of prayers being said in tamil it should continue to do so, and if it has a tradition of prayers being said in sanskrit it should continue as well. there is no question of any competitive disadvantage if existing traditions are continued.

just to put things in perspective the songs of the Rig Veda are ~~2,500~~ 3,500 years old. the fact that these songs continue to used in the liturgy of many temples all across India is quite marvelous.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:40 am

This is an extract from Michael Woods's documentary in which he is talking about Chidambaram and the Dikshitar priests:

One Dikshitar priest tells Woods that the Dikshitars are mentioned in the Puranas.

by Kris Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:33 am

Rashmun wrote:This is an extract from Michael Woods's documentary in which he is talking about Chidambaram and the Dikshitar priests:

One Dikshitar priest tells Woods that the Dikshitars are mentioned in the Puranas.

>>>Wow, Raja, a Dikshitar who listens to Paul Simon and reads Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and who has been to Europe. These guys don't seem to be all that inward looking. I remember seeing this show, but don't recall this particular bit about Chidambaram. Thanks for posting.

by smArtha Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:34 am

Kris wrote:>>>Wow, Raja, a Dikshitar who listens to Paul Simon and reads Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and who has been to Europe. These guys don't seem to be all that inward looking. I remember seeing this show, but don't recall this particular bit about Chidambaram. Thanks for posting.

I'm not aware of the specific restrictions and expectations on a Chidambaram Dikshitar, but I can tell you that the temple priests are not mandated to be inward looking. It is a a recommended and advised quality,as it is for all Hindus in general and brahmans in particular, but not mandated on anyone. What is mandatory however is that they adhere to the prescribed personal nithya karmas (this grants them and their successors the privilege to be the priests/custodians) and the established practices and rituals of the temple concerned.

by Kris Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:51 am

smArtha wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>Wow, Raja, a Dikshitar who listens to Paul Simon and reads Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and who has been to Europe. These guys don't seem to be all that inward looking. I remember seeing this show, but don't recall this particular bit about Chidambaram. Thanks for posting.

I'm not aware of the specific restrictions and expectations on a Chidambaram Dikshitar, but I can tell you that the temple priests are not mandated to be inward looking. It is a a recommended and advised quality,as it is for all Hindus in general and brahmans in particular, but not mandated on anyone. What is mandatory however is that they adhere to the prescribed personal nithya karmas (this grants them and their successors the privilege to be the priests/custodians) and the established practices and rituals of the temple concerned.

>>Makes sense.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:57 pm

smArtha wrote:
Kris wrote:>>>Wow, Raja, a Dikshitar who listens to Paul Simon and reads Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and who has been to Europe. These guys don't seem to be all that inward looking. I remember seeing this show, but don't recall this particular bit about Chidambaram. Thanks for posting.

I'm not aware of the specific restrictions and expectations on a Chidambaram Dikshitar, but I can tell you that the temple priests are not mandated to be inward looking. It is a a recommended and advised quality,as it is for all Hindus in general and brahmans in particular, but not mandated on anyone. What is mandatory however is that they adhere to the prescribed personal nithya karmas (this grants them and their successors the privilege to be the priests/custodians) and the established practices and rituals of the temple concerned.

I would dispute the claim that Hinduism recommends Hindus to be inward looking. The claim arguably holds true for a philosophy like Advaita Vedanta but I do not believe it holds true for all schools of Hindu philosophy. Advaita Vedanta is just one out of the many schools of Hindu philosophy.

by smArtha Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:I would dispute the claim that Hinduism recommends Hindus to be inward looking. The claim arguably holds true for a philosophy like Advaita Vedanta but I do not believe it holds true for all schools of Hindu philosophy. Advaita Vedanta is just one out of the many schools of Hindu philosophy.

Which ones in specific don't recommend 'inward looking'?
Afaik, Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta and the Bhakti based Dvaita & Vishista Advaita all recommend 'inward looking' practices be it kriya, devotion, contemplation, self inquiry, meditation etc.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:26 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I would dispute the claim that Hinduism recommends Hindus to be inward looking. The claim arguably holds true for a philosophy like Advaita Vedanta but I do not believe it holds true for all schools of Hindu philosophy. Advaita Vedanta is just one out of the many schools of Hindu philosophy.

Which ones in specific don't recommend 'inward looking'?
Afaik, Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta and the Bhakti based Dvaita & Vishista Advaita all recommend 'inward looking' practices be it kriya, devotion, contemplation, self inquiry, meditation etc.

For various reasons Sankhya is a complicated philosophy to discuss casually. I of course disagree that original Sankhya advises a Hindu to be inward looking although I would agree this is true for Epic Sankhya which is perilously close to the Advaita Vedanta in terms of ontology and consequently possibly ethics.
I don't consider Yoga to be a theoretical philosophy on its own. Yoga is just practical knowledge of how to keep the body in good health. I consider all the so called philosophy in Yoga to be grafted on later but this so called philosophy is meaningless because the practical exercises in Yoga have no connection with any inherent philosophical outlook. Or if you insist on a philosophical outlook it would have to be with Sankhya. Sankhya-Yoga have traditionally been grouped together.

But the easiest way to disprove the claim that all schools of Hindu philosophy advise the Hindu to be inward looking is the Mimansa or Purva Mimansa. Since the performance of
Vedic rituals is of supreme importance in this philosophy it is actually forbidden to be inward looking in this philosophy.

Other examples can be given. For instance, in Dvaita Vedanta, Madhavacharya has explicitly said that in anything related to sexual or sensual matters direct perception takes precedence over anything written even in the Vedas. This cannot have been said by an inward looking person.

by smArtha Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
For various reasons Sankhya is a complicated philosophy to discuss casually. I of course disagree that original Sankhya advises a Hindu to be inward looking although I would agree this is true for Epic Sankhya which is perilously close to the Advaita Vedanta in terms of ontology and consequently possibly ethics.
I don't consider Yoga to be a theoretical philosophy on its own. Yoga is just practical knowledge of how to keep the body in good health. I consider all the so called philosophy in Yoga to be grafted on later but this so called philosophy is meaningless because the practical exercises in Yoga have no connection with any inherent philosophical outlook. Or if you insist on a philosophical outlook it would have to be with Sankhya. Sankhya-Yoga have traditionally been grouped together.

But the easiest way to disprove the claim that all schools of Hindu philosophy advise the Hindu to be inward looking is the Mimansa or Purva Mimansa. Since the performance of
Vedic rituals is of supreme importance in this philosophy it is actually forbidden to be inward looking in this philosophy.

Other examples can be given. For instance, in Dvaita Vedanta, Madhavacharya has explicitly said that in anything related to sexual or sensual matters direct perception takes precedence over anything written even in the Vedas. This cannot have been said by an inward looking person.

Original and Epic Sankhya seems the figment of yours or 'scholar' imagination. No evidence of such a distinction exists in tradition. Bhagavad Gita which predates the Advaita texts/interpretations of Shankaracharya has a full chapter on the Sankhya Yoga and even by then interpretations is very much 'inward looking'.

The first chapter of Patanjali Yoga Sutras is titled 'Samadhi Pada' and the second sutra (which is for all practical purposes the one defining Yoga) states Yogas-citta-vrtti-nirodhah . So much for it being 'originally' a guide to physical health.

pUrva mImAmsa is about the karma as an end in itself and uttara mImAmsa is about Karma as a means to an end i.e. jnAna. Depending on the set of karma kAnda actions in question we can argue if their objective is 'inward looking' or not.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:49 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
For various reasons Sankhya is a complicated philosophy to discuss casually. I of course disagree that original Sankhya advises a Hindu to be inward looking although I would agree this is true for Epic Sankhya which is perilously close to the Advaita Vedanta in terms of ontology and consequently possibly ethics.
I don't consider Yoga to be a theoretical philosophy on its own. Yoga is just practical knowledge of how to keep the body in good health. I consider all the so called philosophy in Yoga to be grafted on later but this so called philosophy is meaningless because the practical exercises in Yoga have no connection with any inherent philosophical outlook. Or if you insist on a philosophical outlook it would have to be with Sankhya. Sankhya-Yoga have traditionally been grouped together.

But the easiest way to disprove the claim that all schools of Hindu philosophy advise the Hindu to be inward looking is the Mimansa or Purva Mimansa. Since the performance of
Vedic rituals is of supreme importance in this philosophy it is actually forbidden to be inward looking in this philosophy.

Other examples can be given. For instance, in Dvaita Vedanta, Madhavacharya has explicitly said that in anything related to sexual or sensual matters direct perception takes precedence over anything written even in the Vedas. This cannot have been said by an inward looking person.

Original and Epic Sankhya seems the figment of yours or 'scholar' imagination. No evidence of such a distinction exists in tradition. Bhagavad Gita which predates the Advaita texts/interpretations of Shankaracharya has a full chapter on the Sankhya Yoga and even by then interpretations is very much 'inward looking'.

The first chapter of Patanjali Yoga Sutras is titled 'Samadhi Pada' and the second sutra (which is for all practical purposes the one defining Yoga) states Yogas-citta-vrtti-nirodhah . So much for it being 'originally' a guide to physical health.

pUrva mImAmsa is about the karma as an end in itself and uttara mImAmsa is about Karma as a means to an end i.e. jnAna. Depending on the set of karma kAnda actions in question we can argue if their objective is 'inward looking' or not.

1. Yoga predates Patanjali's Yoga Sutras by a long period of time. It has been argued that certain images found in Harappa and Mohenjo daro depict people in yogic postures. Patanjali's Yoga sutra have no connection whatsoever with the practice of yoga like the asanas and the various yogic techniques. They have been superimposed artificially onto the Yoga system. This is the view of many scholars, and also my view.

2. Mimansa philosophers have refuted the 'Dreaming Argument' and also the the concept of the 'Mystic Trance' both of which are endorsed by the Advaita Vedantists. Further, the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers have also refuted the 'Dreaming Argument'. I have written something about the Nyaya-Vaisesika argument about the Dreaming Argument here:

http://creative.sulekha.com/nyaya-vs-upanisads-the-evidence-of-dreams-and-illusions_325398_blog

Even though the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers boldly refute the Dreaming Argument--which is endorsed by the Upanisads--they unfortunately do not refute the concept of the Mystic trance and there are four or five sutras in the Nyaya sutra which talks of yoga and yogic perception. However, these four-five sutras are believed to have been grafted onto the text a long time after the original formulation of the Nyaya sutra. There are several pieces of evidence to suggest this. First, the Nyaya sutra declares in its beginning that the knowledge of 16 categories will lead to the summum bonum but Yoga is not one of these 16 categories. Second, Vachaspati Mishra in the 9th century AD wrote a curious work in which he wrote down the Nyaya sutras as recognized by him. In this work Vachaspati took care to mention not only the total number of words in his work but also the total number of syllables in his work. The mention of even syllables in the version of Nyaya sutra recognized by him suggests that he is aware that the Nyaya sutra is being tampered with and he wants to stop such tampering. Some time after Vachaspati some other philosopher (whose name i now forget) carried out the same exercise of presenting the Nyaya sutra in the version considered authoritative by him but again there is a discrepancy in some sutras between his version and Vachaspati's version. Third, there is a persistent tradition in Mahayana Budhism that these sutras about yoga in the Nyaya sutra were inserted into the text long after the original Nyaya sutra was composed.

The problem seems to have arisen because logic and logicians were despised by the orthodoxy and so the logicians perhaps felt it necessary to artificially insert the talk of yoga and yogic perception (even though this has nothing to do with logic and debating) into their science in order to save themselves and their science from persecution. There are numerous examples in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata--which had become the propaganda vehicles of the orthodoxy since the common people would attend recitations of these works which talked of thrilling adventures interspersed with discourses on religion and philosophy--which reveal that logic and logicians were despised and looked down upon by the orthodoxy.

Never the less, even though the Nyaya-Vaisesikas do not refute the Mystic Trance it should be noted that the Mimansa philosophers do just that. In that sense it was very bold on the part of the Mimansa philosophers to go about refuting something which was held in such high veneration by the orthodoxy. Also, any talk of Mystic Trance (in which the individual unites with the absolute) is of course nonsensical to Dvaita Vedantins who believe that the individual and the absolute are two very distinct entities.

3. Why the silence on Madhavacharya's view that direct perception takes precedence over anything written in the Vedas when it comes to sexual and sensual matters? The founder of Dvaita Vedanta was clearly not inward looking nor can what he is asking his followers to do be construed as being a direction to be inward looking.

4. There is such a thing as original Sankhya and Epic Sankhya and the two being fundamentally distinct. The problem with Sankhya is that it is a very ancient philosophy, but it is also a very mysterious philosophy. There are only two texts which come down to us as being representative of the Sankhya--the Sankhya Karika which is dated around 2nd-4th century AD and the Sankhya Sutra which is dated to around 15th century AD. We are informed in several sources about there being a standard and authoritative Sankhya text called the Sasti Tantra but it is now lost to us. According to the Vedantin Vijnana Bhiksu, Time itself had devoured the Sankhya philosophy. Both the Sankhya Karika and Sankhya Sutra are not considered representative of original Sankhya, nor is the Sankhya in the Gita representative of the original Sankhya.

The Sankhya in the Sankhya Karika and Sankhya Sutra talks of twenty five tattvas. Of these twenty four are incorporated into Prakriti (primieval matter) which is also known as pradhana (primary), while the twenty fifth is purusha which means consciousness in the context of Sankhya. But both Sankhya Sutra and Sankhya Karika are clear about one thing: there is no God in their philosophy and in fact they offer arguments in support of atheism.

In Epic Sankhya, which is the Sankhya of the Gita, there are twenty six tattvas. The twenty sixth tattva is God which is an insertion of God into the original Sankhya philosophy. Also, in this school of Sankhya, Purusha starts taking on the characteristics of Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. Purusha becomes primary while Prakriti or Pradhana becomes secondary. This is ironical because in Sankhya Prakriti is consistently referred to as Pradhana and Pradhana means primary. So there seems to be a complete distortion of original Sankhya in Epic Sankhya.

The Mahabharata describes three schools of Sankhya: Sankhya of twenty five tattvas and Sankhya of twenty six tattvas and a third school which is Sankhya of twenty four tattvas. In this Sankhya school of twenty four tattavs purusha is included within prakriti or pradhana. It is significant that in the Mahabharata this school of twenty four tattvas is articulated by a person called Panchashikha. The reason why this is significant is that we are informed in several independent sources that the founder of Sankhya was a person called Kapila whose direct disciple was Asuri whose direct disciple was Panchasikha.

The Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita is believed to have been a layered composition meaning it was composed over a very long period of time. Some have argued that it could have been composed from between 6th century BC to 6th century AD. Now, in the Charaka Samhita, there is a description of the Sankhya. Only one school of Sankhya is described meaning that the author(s) of the Charaka Samhita were either familiar with only one school of Sankhya or else that they recognized only one school of Sankhya as being authoritative. Now the school of Sankhya described in the Charaka Samhita is the one which talks of twenty four tattvas (no God, and purusha included within prakriti or pradhana) which is the school of Sankhya expounded by Panchasikha in the Mahabharata.

Needless to say, if you include Purusha within Prakriti or Pradhana then the Sankhya becomes a materialistic philosophy like the Charvaka philosophy. It should be noted here that both the Sankhya and the Charvaka philosophies subscribe to svabhava-vada which stands for the doctrine of nature or more specifically laws of nature. The Jain philosopher Silanka has argued that the Sankhya has only a nominal difference with the Charvaka philosophy.

Another thing to consider is that Adi Sankaracharya while rebutting the Sankhya in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra refutes it as a materialist philosophy. It is the doctrine of the Pradhana, according to Adi Sankara. In fact Sankara considers the Sankhya to be the main rival of the Vedanta and declares that just like in a wrestling contest if you vanquish the chief wrestler of the opposing camp you have effectively defeated all the other wrestlers opposing you, so by vanquishing the Sankhya through his arguments he is in turn inflicting defeat on all his philosophical opponents. Had the Sankhya been a philosophy of philosophical idealism, as presented in the Gita, Adi Sankara would not have considered it to be the main opposition to the Vedanta; he would instead have argued that there are some minor differences between Sankhya and Vedanta and turned his attention to the other rival schools of philosophy.

The Sankhya is also mentioned, along with its founder Kapila, in the Upanisads. But a close reading of the concerned Upanisadic passages reveal that the Upanisads are refuting Sankhya rather than endorsing it. In one section in the Svetasvatara Upanisad the text talks of philosophical views then prevailing which are opposed by the writer of the Upanisad. One of them is the view of the female principle. Now, in Sankhya, Prakriti or Pradhana is viewed as female principle (and Purusha as male principle). Several philosophers including those who cannot possible be accused of bias against hinduism like S.Radhakrishnan have held that when the Svetasvatara Upanisad attacks the view of the female principle, it is attacking the Sankhya.

The Sankhya Karika begins by voicing is opposition to what is present in the Vedas. I have written about this earlier:

http://creative.sulekha.com/secularism-and-sankhya_325317_blog

by smArtha Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:
.....

This is what happens if we take an academic/scholarly approach to 'darsanas'. Read up a bunch of compilations and excrete/vomit them out unrelated to the context. What has the Mystic Trance (whatever heck you mean by that) and Dream Argument got to do with 'inward looking' unless you extrapolated one or both of them. Why is only Samkhya in Gita an Epic Samkhya and that in Mahabharata not? If 3 schools have a difference on one or two tattvas by no stretch of whatever faculty, one concludes that two of them are distortions on one original? It is equally possible that two of them added more to the original OR two of them dropped some from the original. And how do you identify which is the Original one? In any case the topic has nothing to do with the variants of Samkhya Tattvas as I can show below.

Starting from Pradhana or Prakriti what are the top 6 tattvas in Samkhya (whichever Samkhya school you subscribe to)?
Leave Prakriti or Pradhana aside how does one get a grasp on the Mahat, Mano, Buddhi, Ahamkara etc which are Tattvas in all Samkhya schools? Is that by external material action? Or through one or other methods of 'inward inquiry'?

That yOga predates Patanjali is well established even in the tradition. yOga goes back to both the aagama(including tantra, yamala, aghOra & kapali texts) and nigama (samhita, brahmana, aranyaka & upanishad texts). And these are, at the least a good 5000+ years old even by the accepted dating methods. Is your claim that the aagama/nigama texts referred to yOga purely in the context of 'physical exercise and well-being'?

I have no reference to the quote or context of what is Madhavacharya's view on direct perception? So cannot comment on that one.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:52 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
.....

This is what happens if we take an academic/scholarly approach to 'darsanas'. Read up a bunch of compilations and excrete/vomit them out unrelated to the context. What has the Mystic Trance (whatever heck you mean by that) and Dream Argument got to do with 'inward looking' unless you extrapolated one or both of them. Why is only Samkhya in Gita an Epic Samkhya and that in Mahabharata not? If 3 schools have a difference on one or two tattvas by no stretch of whatever faculty, one concludes that two of them are distortions on one original? It is equally possible that two of them added more to the original OR two of them dropped some from the original. And how do you identify which is the Original one? In any case the topic has nothing to do with the variants of Samkhya Tattvas as I can show below.

Starting from Pradhana or Prakriti what are the top 6 tattvas in Samkhya (whichever Samkhya school you subscribe to)?
Leave Prakriti or Pradhana aside how does one get a grasp on the Mahat, Mano, Buddhi, Ahamkara etc which are Tattvas in all Samkhya schools? Is that by external material action? Or through one or other methods of 'inward inquiry'?

That yOga predates Patanjali is well established even in the tradition. yOga goes back to both the aagama(including tantra, yamala, aghOra & kapali texts) and nigama (samhita, brahmana, aranyaka & upanishad texts). And these are, at the least a good 5000+ years old even by the accepted dating methods. Is your claim that the aagama/nigama texts referred to yOga purely in the context of 'physical exercise and well-being'?

I have no reference to the quote or context of what is Madhavacharya's view on direct perception? So cannot comment on that one.

1. The Dreaming Argument and also the Mystic Trance are philosophical arguments which seek to support the view of philosophical idealism which Advaita Vedanta (and also Mahayana Budhism) subscribes to. The Mystic Trance is referred to in the Upanisads by the term 'turiya'. According to the Mimansa philosophers all this talk of mystic trance; and also of trying to give the same ontological status to objects seen in dreams and objects seen in the waking state are futile and nonsensical. If you wish to experience the states of 'susupti' (deep sleep) and 'turiya' (mystic trance) then you will have be to be 'inward looking' but the Mimansa philosophers dismiss all the talk of mystic trance and also of deep sleep and of giving the same ontological status to objects seen in dreams and objects seen in the waking state as bunkum, hogwash, rubbish. It is not that the Mimansa philosophers just dismiss these (foolish according to the Mimansakas) claims summarily, but they offer sophisticated arguments about why they consider such talk of turiya, etc. to be rubbish and nonsense.

2. Sankhya in Gita is Epic Sankhya. Sankhya in Mahabharata is also Epic Sankhya because even though the Mahabharata describes three schools of Sankhya it goes on to endorse Epic Sankhya i.e. the Sankhya of the twenty six tattvas which is the Sankhya of the Gita.

3. Mahat, Budhi, Ahankara, etc. all have for their basis the pradhana or prakriti according to the materialist school of Sankhya. In this school, purusha is included within prakriti which means that consciousness (purusha) is a product of matter according to the Sankhya of twenty four tattvas.

4. The fact that originally the Sankhya must have been a materialist school is evident when consider that the early Vedantins--who were representatives of philosophical idealism-- treat this school as their foremost philosophical rival. The Sankhya of the Gita has minor differences with the Advaita Vedanta because in Epic Sankhya purusha has the characteristics of the Brahman of Advaita and there is only a nominal difference between Epic Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta. But out of the 105 sutras in the Brahma Sutra refuting rival philosophies, fully 60 sutras are designed to refute the Sankhya philosophy. As i wrote earlier:

Adi Sankaracharya while rebutting the Sankhya in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra refutes it as a materialist philosophy. It is the doctrine of the Pradhana, according to Adi Sankara. In fact Sankara considers the Sankhya to be the main rival of the Vedanta and declares that just like in a wrestling contest if you vanquish the chief wrestler of the opposing camp you have effectively defeated all the other wrestlers opposing you, so by vanquishing the Sankhya through his arguments he is in turn inflicting defeat on all his philosophical opponents. Had the Sankhya been a philosophy of philosophical idealism, as presented in the Gita, Adi Sankara would not have considered it to be the main opposition to the Vedanta; he would instead have argued that there are some minor differences between Sankhya and Vedanta and turned his attention to the other rival schools of philosophy.

Additionally, the fact that it is Panchasikha who is expounding the Sankhya of the twenty four categories in Mahabharata is significant because Panchasikha is known to be the disciple of Asuri who in turn was a disciple of Kapila who was the founder of the Sankhya philosophy. The fact that both the Sankhya Karika and also the Sankhya Sutra expound uncompromising atheism is indicative of the fact that original Sankhya was an atheistic philosophy which of course means that Epic Sankhya could not possibly be original Sankhya.

---------
Dandekar in his article 'God in Indian Philosophy' (Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 1968, pg 444) writes:
The origin of the Sankhya is to be traced to the pre-Vedic non-Aryan thought complex.

Garbe, writing in the Encylopaedia of Religon and Ethics vol. 11, observes:
The origin of the Sankhya system appears in the proper light only when we understand that in those regions of India which were little influenced by Brahmanism the first attempt had been made to solve the riddles of the world and of our existence merely by means of reason. For the Sankhya philosophy is, in its essence, not only atheistic but also inimical to the Veda. All appeal to sruti in the Sankhya texts lying before us are subsequent additions. We may altogether remove the Vedic elements grafted upon the system and it will not in the least be affected thereby. The Sankhya philosophy had been originally, and has remained up to the present day, in its real contents, un-Vedic and independent of the Brahmanical tradition.

http://creative.sulekha.com/secularism-and-sankhya_325317_blog

----
The conventional dating of the Rig Veda is circa 1400 BC. So your claim of yoga texts dating back to 5,000 years does not hold much water.

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:04 pm

In his refutation of the Sankhya philosophy, Adi Sankara while giving the purva paksa (view of the opponent) of the Sankhya philosopher accepts that the Sankhya philosophers consider the tattvas like Mahat, etc to arise or come into being due to a a transformation in the pradhana (which is also known as prakriti or primieval matter):

These philosophers, said Adi Sankara, would have argued thus (Adi Sankara on Brahma Sutra ii.2,3 and ii.2,5; in what follows, pradhana= prakriti = primeval matter in Sankhya terminology)

As unconscious milk flows forth from its own nature (svabhavena eva) merely for the nourishment of the young animal, and as unconscious water, from its own nature (svabhavena eva) flows along for the benefit of mankind, so the pradhana also, though unconscious, may be supposed to move from its own highest nature (svabhavena eva) merely for the purpose of effecting the highest end of man....

Just as grass, herbs,water,etc. independently of any other instrumental cause (nimitta antara nirapeksa) transform themselves, by their own nature (svabhavat eva) into milk, so we assume, the pradhana also transforms itself into the Great Principle (Mahat) and so on. And, if you ask how we know that grass transforms itself independently of any instrumental cause, we reply 'Because no such cause is observed.' For, if we did perceive some such cause, we certainly should apply it to grass, etc. according to our liking, and thereby produce milk. But, as a matter of fact, we do no such thing. Hence, the transformation of grass and the like must be considered to be due to its own nature merely, and we may infer therefrom that the transformation of the pradhana is of the same kind.

http://creative.sulekha.com/the-scientific-trend-in-indian-philosophy_412138_blog

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

The background of the tandava dance is that Shiva's father in law had arranged for a feast for many people but he did not invite Shiva to this feast because he was uncomfortable with Shiva coming along with his weird followers (most of Shiva's followers or ganas have some kind of deformity for instance one may have only one eye, another could be abnormally scrawny, yet another could be abnormally obese, etc.) and Shiva himself of course is not exactly sophisticated or well dressed or charming (unlike Vishnu). When Shiva's wife Sati (who was at the time visiting her father) saw that her husband had not been invited to the feast she felt so humiliated and angry that she jumped into a fire and committed suicide. When Shiva came to know of this he rushed to the spot, picked up Sati's corpse and then started dancing the dance of death: the Tandava dance. It was such a terrible dance that there was great turbulence and upheaval in Heaven and Earth as Shiva continued to dance his terrible and angry dance of death.

The question is: How did Shiva eventually calm down and come to his senses?

is this a general question you are asking about the cosmic dance or specific to the thillai sthalam? if the latter, i checked with a person that i know who is well versed in the thirumurai scripture and he told me that the nataraja deity installed there is depicted as performing the blissful dance -- Ananda natam and not rudra tAndavam, the other form of the cosmic dance. hence the frequent reference to Ananda natam in carnatic compositions and thirumurai scripture.

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:31 pm

Have the cows come home yet?

by Guest Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

The background of the tandava dance is that Shiva's father in law had arranged for a feast for many people but he did not invite Shiva to this feast because he was uncomfortable with Shiva coming along with his weird followers (most of Shiva's followers or ganas have some kind of deformity for instance one may have only one eye, another could be abnormally scrawny, yet another could be abnormally obese, etc.) and Shiva himself of course is not exactly sophisticated or well dressed or charming (unlike Vishnu). When Shiva's wife Sati (who was at the time visiting her father) saw that her husband had not been invited to the feast she felt so humiliated and angry that she jumped into a fire and committed suicide. When Shiva came to know of this he rushed to the spot, picked up Sati's corpse and then started dancing the dance of death: the Tandava dance. It was such a terrible dance that there was great turbulence and upheaval in Heaven and Earth as Shiva continued to dance his terrible and angry dance of death.

The question is: How did Shiva eventually calm down and come to his senses?

is this a general question you are asking about the cosmic dance or specific to the thillai sthalam? if the latter, i checked with a person that i know who is well versed in the thirumurai scripture and he told me that the nataraja deity installed there is depicted as performing the blissful dance -- Ananda natam and not rudra tAndavam, the other form of the cosmic dance. hence the frequent reference to Ananda natam in carnatic compositions and thirumurai scripture.

Thanks for the clarification about the fact that the Nataraja deity is associated only with Ananda natam and not rudra Tandavam. This is something very useful to know. Could you ask your friend if he knows of any Shiva temple(s) where the deity is associated with rudra Tandavam? Thanks.

-----
The answer to my question is: The Gods had approached Vishnu for help. Vishnu then went to where Shiva was dancing the dance of death with Sati in his arms. Vishnu then hurled his sudarshan chakra at Shiva directing it towards Sat's body. The Sudarshan chakra cut Sati's body into 64 parts all of which fell on different spots on Earth and since Sati was no longer in his arms anymore Shiva came to his senses.

by bw Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

The background of the tandava dance is that Shiva's father in law had arranged for a feast for many people but he did not invite Shiva to this feast because he was uncomfortable with Shiva coming along with his weird followers (most of Shiva's followers or ganas have some kind of deformity for instance one may have only one eye, another could be abnormally scrawny, yet another could be abnormally obese, etc.) and Shiva himself of course is not exactly sophisticated or well dressed or charming (unlike Vishnu). When Shiva's wife Sati (who was at the time visiting her father) saw that her husband had not been invited to the feast she felt so humiliated and angry that she jumped into a fire and committed suicide. When Shiva came to know of this he rushed to the spot, picked up Sati's corpse and then started dancing the dance of death: the Tandava dance. It was such a terrible dance that there was great turbulence and upheaval in Heaven and Earth as Shiva continued to dance his terrible and angry dance of death.

The question is: How did Shiva eventually calm down and come to his senses?

is this a general question you are asking about the cosmic dance or specific to the thillai sthalam? if the latter, i checked with a person that i know who is well versed in the thirumurai scripture and he told me that the nataraja deity installed there is depicted as performing the blissful dance -- Ananda natam and not rudra tAndavam, the other form of the cosmic dance. hence the frequent reference to Ananda natam in carnatic compositions and thirumurai scripture.

Thanks for the clarification about the fact that the Nataraja deity is associated only with Ananda natam and not rudra Tandavam. This is something very useful to know. Could you ask your friend if he knows of any Shiva temple(s) where the deity is associated with rudra Tandavam? Thanks.

-----
The answer to my question is: The Gods had approached Vishnu for help. Vishnu then went to where Shiva was dancing the dance of death with Sati in his arms. Vishnu then hurled his sudarshan chakra at Shiva directing it towards Sat's body. The Sudarshan chakra cut Sati's body into 64 parts all of which fell on different spots on Earth and since Sati was no longer in his arms anymore Shiva came to his senses.

i feel like reading amar chitra katha comics all over again - that was my primary source of hindu mythology.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:57 pm

bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
The answer to my question is: The Gods had approached Vishnu for help. Vishnu then went to where Shiva was dancing the dance of death with Sati in his arms. Vishnu then hurled his sudarshan chakra at Shiva directing it towards Sat's body. The Sudarshan chakra cut Sati's body into 64 parts all of which fell on different spots on Earth and since Sati was no longer in his arms anymore Shiva came to his senses...

AND, all the other cut n vomit....

i feel like reading amar chitra katha comics all over again - that was my primary source of hindu mythology.

to me it looks more like Sindbad and Laila...

by bw Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:34 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
The answer to my question is: The Gods had approached Vishnu for help. Vishnu then went to where Shiva was dancing the dance of death with Sati in his arms. Vishnu then hurled his sudarshan chakra at Shiva directing it towards Sat's body. The Sudarshan chakra cut Sati's body into 64 parts all of which fell on different spots on Earth and since Sati was no longer in his arms anymore Shiva came to his senses...

AND, all the other cut n vomit....

i feel like reading amar chitra katha comics all over again - that was my primary source of hindu mythology.

to me it looks more like Sindbad and Laila...

how? why? who is sindbad? sinbad the sailor?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:53 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't know rashmun. in the thirumurais and in carnatic compositions such as the above, the cosmic dance is often though not always described as "Ananda natam", i.e. joyful dance.

The background of the tandava dance is that Shiva's father in law had arranged for a feast for many people but he did not invite Shiva to this feast because he was uncomfortable with Shiva coming along with his weird followers (most of Shiva's followers or ganas have some kind of deformity for instance one may have only one eye, another could be abnormally scrawny, yet another could be abnormally obese, etc.) and Shiva himself of course is not exactly sophisticated or well dressed or charming (unlike Vishnu). When Shiva's wife Sati (who was at the time visiting her father) saw that her husband had not been invited to the feast she felt so humiliated and angry that she jumped into a fire and committed suicide. When Shiva came to know of this he rushed to the spot, picked up Sati's corpse and then started dancing the dance of death: the Tandava dance. It was such a terrible dance that there was great turbulence and upheaval in Heaven and Earth as Shiva continued to dance his terrible and angry dance of death.

The question is: How did Shiva eventually calm down and come to his senses?

is this a general question you are asking about the cosmic dance or specific to the thillai sthalam? if the latter, i checked with a person that i know who is well versed in the thirumurai scripture and he told me that the nataraja deity installed there is depicted as performing the blissful dance -- Ananda natam and not rudra tAndavam, the other form of the cosmic dance. hence the frequent reference to Ananda natam in carnatic compositions and thirumurai scripture.

Thanks for the clarification about the fact that the Nataraja deity is associated only with Ananda natam and not rudra Tandavam. This is something very useful to know. Could you ask your friend if he knows of any Shiva temple(s) where the deity is associated with rudra Tandavam? Thanks.

-----
The answer to my question is: The Gods had approached Vishnu for help. Vishnu then went to where Shiva was dancing the dance of death with Sati in his arms. Vishnu then hurled his sudarshan chakra at Shiva directing it towards Sat's body. The Sudarshan chakra cut Sati's body into 64 parts all of which fell on different spots on Earth and since Sati was no longer in his arms anymore Shiva came to his senses.

18 of these 64 locations where Sati's body parts fell are known as Maha Shakti Peethas because there is apparently no dispute about the precise location of these 18 spots. Four out of the 18 are in Andhra Pradesh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peethas

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:23 am

An interesting article on the Dikshitars by a former District Collector of South Arcot:

http://archive.is/wSD2C

According to this article the Dikshitars might be descendants of UPwallahs, more specifically the ancestors of Dikshitars may have been the Dikshits of Uttar Pradesh.
Further the article says there exist several scriptures prior to the 6th century AD which associate them with the Nataraja temple. So they are unquestionably a very ancient community of temple priests.
The article also goes on to talk about the social structure of the Dikshitars. All Dikshitar priests are equals and there is no head priest.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:14 pm

Earlier in this thread, while talking of the Mimansa philosophers, i had written:

1. The Dreaming Argument and also the Mystic Trance are philosophical arguments which seek to support the view of philosophical idealism which Advaita Vedanta (and also Mahayana Budhism) subscribes to. The Mystic Trance is referred to in the Upanisads by the term 'turiya'. According to the Mimansa philosophers all this talk of mystic trance; and also of trying to give the same ontological status to objects seen in dreams and objects seen in the waking state are futile and nonsensical. If you wish to experience the states of 'susupti' (deep sleep) and 'turiya' (mystic trance) then you will have be to be 'inward looking' but the Mimansa philosophers dismiss all the talk of mystic trance and also of deep sleep and of giving the same ontological status to objects seen in dreams and objects seen in the waking state as bunkum, hogwash, rubbish. It is not that the Mimansa philosophers just dismiss these (foolish according to the Mimansakas) claims summarily, but they offer sophisticated arguments about why they consider such talk of turiya, etc. to be rubbish and nonsense.

For a fuller understanding of this issue, the above needs to be supplemented with the following:

The Upanisads--far from helping the Mimansakas in their philosophical enterprise--create for them a formidable problem. They find it impossible to deny the fact that the Upanisads form part of the Veda and since from their own standpoing the Veda is absolutely valid, they cannot just disown the authoritativeness of the Upanisads. They also find it impossible to to accept the philosophical position that of the Upanisads: the dominant trend of Upanisadic speculations is pronouncedly idealistic while the idealist outlook goes completely against the defense of the ritual acts and its presupposition. What, then, can the Mimansakas do with the actual contents of the Upanisads? The only alternative they are left with is to explain these away ingeniously.
There can be nothing in the Veda, argue the Mimansakas, that is not connected with ritual or injunctions for its performance. If, therefore, the prima facie meaning of any Vedic passage does not convey such an idea, the passage itself has to be understood in an indirect sense of some kind of roundabout glorification of the Vedic ritual.
Here is a typical example. A certain Vedic passage declares that Vayu (Wind) is a swift moving deity. There is nothing in the plain meaning of this to convey any ritual injunction. But what is the real meaning of the passage according the Mimansakas? They argue that taken in the indirect sense of glorification of a ritual, the passage really means: Just as Wind is a swift-moving deity, so also the ritual performed with Wind as deity, swiftly brings its desired result. Such an indirect glorification of the ritual as the underlying meaning of Vedic passages having nothing to do with ritual injunctions is, in Mimansa terminology, Arthavada. And they want us to believe that the Upanisads are to be taken as Arthavada. This generalised claim apparently soothes the philosophical conscience of the Mimansakas and none of them really takes the trouble of showing how the whole of the Upanisads is in fact mere arthavada.

http://creative.sulekha.com/mimansa-atheism-part-2_325303_blog

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:23 pm

Just as the Mimansakas seek to find ritual injunctions in anything written in the Upanisads (although starting from this they end up offering some outstanding rebuttals of philosophical idealism), so the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers who are science oriented go about seeking scientific content in the Vedas. Even if the scientific fact is not present in the Vedas, the Nyaya-Vaisesika is prepared to go out of the way to twist what is in the Vedas and seek to show scientific content in them thereby soothing perhaps his religious conscience.

by Sponsored content