chitranchiru kaale!!

[Guest guest]

Dear All.,

 

According to the mail of Sriman Visu, (quote)

 

"little wee-little leg, we come and offer our obeissance to your lotus feet;

listen to its hollowed content. You are born in a family of trustees to whom are

entrusted the grazing cattle; "

 

This means the lotus feet of the wee-little leg is being worshipped.

It is not acceptable simply going by the obvious and apparent tamil meaning.

(usually the inner meanings -vyakhyanams - are given,

giving the due for the exact literary meaning first - we cannot

overlook the direct meaning of the language and attribute special

nuances just to fit in our imaginations. in otherwords, special

interpretations are welcome but please do not contradict the literal

meaning of the language.)

 

Needless to say it is out of context with the dhanur masam

early morning (chiru kaalai) practices.. (Paavai Nonbu!!)

 

urs

Arulmari

 

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 03:40:23

Visu9 wrote:

>/Om namO nArAyaNAya ||

>/ciRRaJ/ciRu kAlE vant/unnai cEvitt/un

>

>/poR/tAmarai/aTiyE pORRum poRuL kELAy

>

>/peRRam/mEytt/uNNum kulattil pirantu nI

>

>/kuRREval eGkaLaik koLLAmaR/pOkAtu

>

>

>Meaning: Glory:

>

>O, little wee-little leg, we come and offer our obeissance to your lotus feet;

listen to its hollowed content. You are born in a family of trustees to whom are

entrusted the grazing cattle; therefore indeed [due to the principle of

trusteeship] you cannot but receive a liberal dosage of our small services

(chores: /kaiGkaryam??).

>

>Last four lines: Prayer:

>

>/gOvintA, you are a witness that it is not for material possessions that we do

so. In this birth, and in the next several births to come, we will be your

servants in confidence and yours only.

>

>/visu

>

>[ Dear Visu -- Once again you have presented several unusual

> and unconventional meanings, most of which are new to those

> of us who are familiar with the tranditional interpretations.

> Your interpretation of 'ciRRam ciRu kAlE' as being a vocative

> addressed to Krishna is indeed striking, but I am not sure it

> is acceptable grammatically. I invite others to comment as well.

> -- Moderator ]

 

 

 

_

Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!

http://mail.lycos.com

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

It is true, "chiRu KAle" can very much be interpreted as 'thiruvadi' of

Govindan. Many times infact i get the same picture in my mind when I recite

the pAsuram even before this issue raised thru this list. To cap it all, if

you visit Oppiliappan temple, the full inner prakAram is painted with

thriuppavai pasurams depicting with pictures related to the PAsurams. For

this particular pAsurams (chiRRam ...), thiruvadi of Govindan is depicted.

Though the second line of pAsuram starts with poRRamarai adiye..., it is

praising the chiRu kale as Golden Lotus Feet.

 

Adiyen

 

Balaji K

 

 

-

"GOPALAN SRINIVASA SAMPATH KUMAR" <arulmari

<bhakti-list>; <bhakti-list>

Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:12 PM

chitranchiru kaale!!

 

> Dear All.,

>

> According to the mail of Sriman Visu, (quote)

>

> "little wee-little leg, we come and offer our obeissance to your lotus

feet; listen to its hollowed content. You are born in a family of trustees

to whom are entrusted the grazing cattle; "

>

> This means the lotus feet of the wee-little leg is being worshipped.

> It is not acceptable simply going by the obvious and apparent tamil

meaning. (usually the inner meanings -vyakhyanams - are given,

> giving the due for the exact literary meaning first - we cannot

> overlook the direct meaning of the language and attribute special

> nuances just to fit in our imaginations. in otherwords, special

> interpretations are welcome but please do not contradict the literal

> meaning of the language.)

>

> Needless to say it is out of context with the dhanur masam

> early morning (chiru kaalai) practices.. (Paavai Nonbu!!)

>

> urs

> Arulmari

>

> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 03:40:23

> Visu9 wrote:

> >/Om namO nArAyaNAya ||

>

> >/ciRRaJ/ciRu kAlE vant/unnai cEvitt/un

> >

> >/poR/tAmarai/aTiyE pORRum poRuL kELAy

> >

> >/peRRam/mEytt/uNNum kulattil pirantu nI

> >

> >/kuRREval eGkaLaik koLLAmaR/pOkAtu

> >

> >

> >Meaning: Glory:

> >

> >O, little wee-little leg, we come and offer our obeissance to your lotus

feet; listen to its hollowed content. You are born in a family of trustees

to whom are entrusted the grazing cattle; therefore indeed [due to the

principle of trusteeship] you cannot but receive a liberal dosage of our

small services (chores: /kaiGkaryam??).

> >

> >Last four lines: Prayer:

> >

> >/gOvintA, you are a witness that it is not for material possessions that

we do so. In this birth, and in the next several births to come, we will be

your servants in confidence and yours only.

> >

> >/visu

> >

> >[ Dear Visu -- Once again you have presented several unusual

> > and unconventional meanings, most of which are new to those

> > of us who are familiar with the tranditional interpretations.

> > Your interpretation of 'ciRRam ciRu kAlE' as being a vocative

> > addressed to Krishna is indeed striking, but I am not sure it

> > is acceptable grammatically. I invite others to comment as well.

> > -- Moderator ]

>

>

>

> _

> Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!

> http://mail.lycos.com

>

>

> -----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

> To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

> Group Home: bhakti-list

> Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All.,

 

No problem with describing 'chiru kaale' as thiruvadi.

 

But, in general, if it is a vocative address it will be

followed by exclamation mark (!) (vilithal in tamil)

e.g. sridhara! maaya! vaamanane!

 

Whereas in Chitranchiru kaale paasuram there is no such

exclamation mark implied after chiru kaale. elsewhere

in the same pasuram 'govinda!' is a clearcut

vocative address (vilithal).

 

so, please let us stick to the traditional vyakhyanams

which are a treasure and also to the simple literal

meanings. (sva- upadesam is entitled only to

poorvacharyas and not to us who are least qualifed

not just in terms of anubhavam but also by the grammatical

knowledge of tamil..)

 

Thank you...

 

arulmari.

 

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:54:01

K Balaji wrote:

>Dear all,

>

>It is true, "chiRu KAle" can very much be interpreted as 'thiruvadi' of

>Govindan. Many times infact i get the same picture in my mind when I recite

>the pAsuram even before this issue raised thru this list. To cap it all, if

>you visit Oppiliappan temple, the full inner prakAram is painted with

>thriuppavai pasurams depicting with pictures related to the PAsurams. For

>this particular pAsurams (chiRRam ...), thiruvadi of Govindan is depicted.

>Though the second line of pAsuram starts with poRRamarai adiye..., it is

>praising the chiRu kale as Golden Lotus Feet.

>

>Adiyen

>

>Balaji K

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "GOPALAN SRINIVASA SAMPATH KUMAR"

<arulmari@l...> wrote:

> Dear All.,

>

> No problem with describing 'chiru kaale' as thiruvadi.

>

> But, in general, if it is a vocative address it will be

> followed by exclamation mark (!) (vilithal in tamil)

> e.g. sridhara! maaya! vaamanane!

 

Most ancient Tamil poems including Divya Prabandham were

not written with punctuation, and I don't think Tamil

even had such a concept in the old days. This being the

case, the presence or lack thereof of exclamantion marks

is proof of nothing other than the modern publisher's

idea of the intent of the words.

> so, please let us stick to the traditional vyakhyanams

> which are a treasure and also to the simple literal

> meanings. (sva- upadesam is entitled only to

> poorvacharyas and not to us who are least qualifed

> not just in terms of anubhavam but also by the grammatical

> knowledge of tamil..)

 

The traditional vyakhyanams are certainly a wealth of information

and must be studied by anyone who wishes to come to a firm

understanding of the meaning of the paasurams, but I would

be hesitant to restrict the freedom of others' to find new

meanings in them. After all, is this not yet another anubhava?

 

And it appears, contrary to what I thought earlier, that

in this case 'ciRu kAlE' can very well grammatically refer

to Kannan's tiruvaDi.

 

regards,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear all.,

 

granted tiruppavai was not scripted during the time.

But, lateron we have several publications (over the past

centuries)., all of them uniformly (edited by scholars)

have the ! punctuation.

 

And both in sanskrit and tamil grammar the bhAvam -

vilithal or azhaithal or koovuthal is well known. the

concept is very much there - as an inherent part of

origin of a language and its development

(may be the denoting sign -!- was not in general use).

 

(Sanskrit: hey rAma! hey rAmou! hey rAmaah! etc.. in the

rAma sabdha - table; the first lesson in sankrit)

 

and thiruvadi - usually refers to a pair., but

I am not sure if kaale can imply a pair.

 

also if one looks in combination with Nachiar thirumozhi,

the immediate continuation of thiruppavai -

 

velvaraippadhan munnam thurai padindhu (Nachiar thirumozhi 1.2)

 

velvaraippadhan munnam - before dawn - which is also

chitranchiru kaalai pozuthu.

 

so, the meaning should not be taken out of context - that

is margazhi paavai nonbu.

 

kaale, as leg, may be a grammatically acceptable meaning,

but is not apt and is out of context.

 

hope it is convincing enough..

 

- arulmari.

 

 

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:14:25

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>bhakti-list, "GOPALAN SRINIVASA SAMPATH KUMAR"

><arulmari@l...> wrote:

>> Dear All.,

>>

>> No problem with describing 'chiru kaale' as thiruvadi.

>>

>> But, in general, if it is a vocative address it will be

>> followed by exclamation mark (!) (vilithal in tamil)

>> e.g. sridhara! maaya! vaamanane!

>

>Most ancient Tamil poems including Divya Prabandham were

>not written with punctuation, and I don't think Tamil

>even had such a concept in the old days. This being the

>case, the presence or lack thereof of exclamantion marks

>is proof of nothing other than the modern publisher's

>idea of the intent of the words.

>

>> so, please let us stick to the traditional vyakhyanams

>> which are a treasure and also to the simple literal

>> meanings. (sva- upadesam is entitled only to

>> poorvacharyas and not to us who are least qualifed

>> not just in terms of anubhavam but also by the grammatical

>> knowledge of tamil..)

>

>The traditional vyakhyanams are certainly a wealth of information

>and must be studied by anyone who wishes to come to a firm

>understanding of the meaning of the paasurams, but I would

>be hesitant to restrict the freedom of others' to find new

>meanings in them. After all, is this not yet another anubhava?

>

>And it appears, contrary to what I thought earlier, that

>in this case 'ciRu kAlE' can very well grammatically refer

>to Kannan's tiruvaDi.

>

>regards,

>Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear BhAgavatas,

 

I disagree with the notion that "kAlE" refers to the

leg of Sri Krishna. It goes against a number of things:

the context of the pasurams thus far, the style of

Azhvars pasurams, as well as linguistically it does

not jive. And finally, it is not in line with our

acharyas vyakhyanams on the pasuram.

 

The context of the Thiruppavai pasurams thus far

clearly talks about waking up very early and

worshipping Lord Krishna in the wee hours of the

morning. And, siRRam siRu kAlai is a very commonly

used phrase to refer to the time just before dawn

(the false dawn - siRu kAlai).

 

I don't recall seeing any pasuram of Azhvars where

they directly address a limb of the Lord. There are

countless references to His lotus feet in the context

of Saranagati, of course, but even then not a direct

call toward the feet. Even Thiruppanazhvar and

Periyazhvar who describe Him from feet to head, do

not use the vocative case for the limbs. If anyone

has seen anything to the contrary, please educate us.

 

Linguistically, let's analyze the pasuram as it flows.

Let's skip the first part as it is the one under

question. Andal starts by refering to His golden lotus

feet - poRRAmaRai adi (even here, adiyE is not

used in the vocative sense). She refers to someone's

lotus feet - un poRRAmaRai adi. Who is this "un"

she is talking about? Is it the leg? No, it is the

one who was born in the clan of cattle herdsmen

(peRRam mEyththuNNum kulaththil piRanthu nee). If

kAlE was used in vocative, then un and nee would have

to go with it. And, I don't think Andal would refer

to Krishna's leg alone as one born in the herdsmen

tribe. Finally, to rest all doubts as to who she is

refering to, she calls Him Govinda (this is where the

vocative call is used). So, usage of kAlE in the

vocative sense does not gramattically merge into the

flow of the pasuram at all.

 

Lastly, to settle matters once and for all, our

acharyas whose ability to read and interpret tamil

pasurams is unmatched have not used "kAlE" in the

vocative sense at all. This should put to rest any

and all doubts on this matter. Sri Mani, I know that

I am repeating what others have said in this last

point. Nevertheless it is an important one for all

of us. We should read the meanings (not necessarily

the vyakhyanams) of these pasurams as written by our

elders before attempting to write their meanings on

our own. Interestingly the vyakhyanams address the

issue of the use of the word kAlE, but with reference

to the more appropriate word which is kAlaththil.

 

In passing, let me also point out the usage of the

phrase "small services" for kuRREval is not a good

idea as it could lead to poor interpretations. The

smallness of the service arises from the fact that

He is of such immense magnitude and we are so small.

However, the services are still large to us; it's the

best and complete service that we can provide. It is

just that He has so many more providing far greater

services to Him, that ours becomes very minute. The

use of the line "liberal dosage of our small services"

could lead some to a dangerous conclusion that we have

larger services to give but we are reserving them for

another time/person. In translating a verse from one

language to another, particularly when it comes to

compound words such as kuRREval, one has to be careful

so that even the possibility that the original meaning

gets corrupted be strictly avoided.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

granted tiruppavai was not scripted during the time.

>But, lateron we have several publications (over the past

>centuries)., all of them uniformly (edited by scholars)

>have the ! punctuation.

 

sorry there was a typo error. it should read

all of them uniformaly (edited by scholars)

do not have the ! punctuation.

 

-arulmari

[Guest guest]

I agree with you. It is not possible by rules of grammar to interpret

chitranchiru kaale as 'the feet of the Lord.' Though there is still scope for

the singular to represent a pair (as questioned in another mail - like 'un adi

saranE' adi (singular) representing the feet), it is not possible to use the

adjective 'chitranchiru' to feet. Let it me make it very short now for

constraints of time. We know that the words 'paadhi' and 'arai' represent half.

One cannot say 'paadhi mani' for half an hour. If the adjective is for the

feet, it should have been 'chinnam siru kaale' and not 'chitram siru kaale.'

 

I did not respond earlier because, a devotee has the right to interpret it in

his/her own way. As Kamban would put it, 'piththar sonnavum, pedhayar sonnavum,

paththar sonnavum pannap perubavO'. Going by grammar and context, this 'kaale'

means wee hours and nothing other than that.

 

I know I have not put it in proper words and this is not a complete answer. If

required, I will continue later.

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

[ I really appreciate the replies of Sri Krishnan and Sri Venkatesan

below. I urge both of you and others to speak up when there are matters

like this (Tamil grammar, etc.) that you feel that you are reasonably

well versed in. As you know my Tamil is very rudimentary so I cannot

properly moderate such discussions. It is important for members such

as yourselves to step in and offer constructive comments. Thanks again,

-- Mani ]

 

-

"TCA Venkatesan" <vtca

<bhakti-list>

Friday, September 20, 2002 3:52 AM

Re: chitranchiru kaale!!

 

 

| Sri:

| Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

|

| Dear BhAgavatas,

|

| I disagree with the notion that "kAlE" refers to the

| leg of Sri Krishna. It goes against a number of things:

| the context of the pasurams thus far, the style of

| Azhvars pasurams, as well as linguistically it does

| not jive. And finally, it is not in line with our

| acharyas vyakhyanams on the pasuram.

|

| adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

| TCA Venkatesan

| http://www.acharya.org

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

We cannot take literal meaning for individual words as it is. If so, can we take

"naay" in nORRu suvarkkam (10th paasuram in thirupaavai) referring to DOG? Let

us not wear mere bhakthi glass alone and try to relate all words to perumaaL.

Essence of the paasuram got out of the sequence of words is important than

meaning of individual words.

Regards,

Nanmaaran

[Guest guest]

/Om namO/nArAyaNAya:

 

Thanks. I can go farther and surmise as follows:

 

The /pAcuram /ciRRaJ ciRu/kAlE of /Sri ANTAL is set to the tune of /cinnJ

ciRu/kiLiyE kaNNammA, celvak/kalaJciyamE of /mahA/kavi bhAratiyAr. And that

would be more consonant if the meaning of the opening pharse is set as "wee

little leg".

 

I would like to advance some arguments in favor of the interpretation as the

little leg of the Lord.

 

1. First context: The objection was that this /pAcuram being one sung in the

month of /mArkaZi puts its weight in favor of the interpretation as "early

morning". I beg to differ from this. This /pAcuram is in practice the last song

of /tirup/pAvai. The next piece (# 30) is a concluding piece identifying the

authoress. It is traditional in our culture to dedicate the lost song to the

lotus feet of the Lord. Compare for example the last piece of the analogous

poem: /tiru/vem/pAvai of Sri /MaNikka/vAcakar: /pORRI un ponnaTi pORRI, etc.

 

Now, being the lost song, it needs an address. This address is also

traditionally the first line. Thus the interpretation as leg is more in context

than the other interpretation, which would limit the song to be sung ONLY during

the month of /mArkaZi. That would be a pity, given the enormous weight of the

prayer part, where /ANTAL is emphatic about her services and the services of her

friends and followers being available only to the Lord [and hence His /aTiyArs].

 

2. Examining more carefully one sees that the structure of /tirup/pAvai songs

follows a general format: The first few lines (two to five lines) form a single

sentence or address statement and sing the glory of the Lord. These lines

generally contain an address. The single exception is /pAcuram No. 22.

 

3. An address generally contains a vocative exclamation. Thus, in the current

song under discussion (/pAcuram #29), /poR/tAmarai aTI is not in vocative case.

/ciRRaJ/ciRu/kAlE is in vocative case. This was Shri /maNi's point too.

 

4. If the phrase uses /kAlai and not /kAlE, there would be no dispute

whatsoever. If /kAlE means morning, /ANTAL would be the first one to have used

such an expression for the morning.

 

5. Finally, /kuTTIk/kaNNan as /Alilaik/kaNNan is very appealing to all of us. In

fact that is the only way I have seen pictures of /kuTTIk/kaNNan, lying with a

smile upon a leaf of a banyan tree and trying to put his leg in His mouth! I do

not know of any other image of baby krishNA. The other one is /bAla/krushNA

dancing on the head of the serpent /kAliGkan. Of course, others are available in

company of the gOpis when He is caught stealing butter etc.

 

Child /krushNA being alone is a rare image. In /pAcuram 25, /ANTAL addresses the

Lord a second time in the concluding line as /Alin ilaiyAy. This surely evokes

the image of baby krushNA! The context of /mArkaZi is the first line of this

/pAcuarm 25 with the resounding words: /mAlE! /maNI/vaNNA! /mArkaZi nIR ATUvAn.

I do not think /ANTAL can herself improve upon that context. But up to and

inclusive of /pACuarm # 25 she has not yet done full justice to the Lotus feet

/poR/tAmari aTi.

 

6. She begins the praise of His Feet in song No. 24: /anRu iv ulakam aLantAy!

aTi pORRI. You measured the Earth that Day [by your step(referring to King

/mahA/pali)]. May that foot be praised! She passes to give a brief summary of

the Lord's incarnation, and ends with the praise of His Feet again in the final

song No. 29.

 

I do not think that the interpretation as "leg" is out of place or takes away

the beauty of the /pAcuram from its traditional interpretaion. And surely this

is not the first time that such an interpretation is done.

 

Finally, a tune similar to /bhAratiyAr's is suggested. Variations may be in

order, but the /pcuarm to me carries not only the summary of /ANTAL's life, but

also the memory of /mahA/kavi bhAratiyAr and his famous song!

 

/vantanam.

 

/nalan taruJ collai nAn kaNtu/konTEn, nArAyaNa ennum nAmam.

 

 

 

Visu

[Guest guest]

> <arulmari@l...> wrote:

 

> > so, please let us stick to the traditional vyakhyanams

> > which are a treasure and also to the simple literal

> > meanings. (sva- upadesam is entitled only to

> > poorvacharyas and not to us who are least qualifed

> > not just in terms of anubhavam but also by the grammatical

> > knowledge of tamil..)

 

Dear all

 

I fully agree that only poorvacharyas entitled for sva-upadesam. Kindly

take a note that I did not try to impose my interpretation on any body. What

I wrote was only my understanding and no intention to hurt anyone's

feelings.

 

Going back to issue, can we take it as a usage of pun on word 'kale' by Sri

Andal ? Also, the last two pAsurams are recited during sARRumurai which

usually takes place after sunrise. That means for those who recite before

sunrise it is wee-hours and after sun rise it is 'Thiruvadi'.

 

Kindly pardon me of any misunderstanding. I leave this open for discussion

to scholars due to my limited knowledge.

 

 

Adiyen

 

Balaji K

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Visu and other Baagavathas

 

Our Vishishtadvaita philosophy and Sri Vaishnavism is gloried by the Acharya

Guruparamparai. "Munnor sonna murai tappame" is the basic principle one

should follow in interperting the grantams or arulicheyal. Acharya Manavala

mamunigal has done vyakyanam to some pasurams of Periyazhwar which became

luptam. He didn't even tried one more pasuram for the fear that it is

possible to mis-state what was interperted by Poorvacharyars. I admire Shri

Visu's tamil literature knowledge, but sincerely request not to re-interpert

Poorvacharyars vyAkhyanams. Sri PeriyavAchAn Pillai (SPVP) has done

vyAkyanams to the entire 4000 prabandhams and is considered the most

authentic. Please permit me to quote what SPVP has to say for this term

"cirrum siru kalE". He has given the meaning as "ushak kalatilE" meaning

"brahma muhurtam". The entire essence of tirupAvai is to pray Lord Sriman

nArAyanA for "tirupalli yezhuchi" and all the meanings has to be construed

as such. It is amusing to note that someone like pirAtti will invoke

Sri:yapathi as "cirrum siru kalE". I have never come across to my knowledge

where any of our azhwars or acharyas have used the word "kal" to mention

"tirupadam". You have mentioned that "If /kAlE means morning, /ANTAL would

be the first one to have used such an expression for the morning." In

Pasuram 2 AndAl mentions "nAtkalE neeradi" - Getting bathed in the early

morning". In thondaripodiazhwAr "Tirupalliyezhuchi" 1st pasuram itself says

"kathiravan gunadisai sigaram vandanainthan, kanavirul agandradhu kalai em

pozhudai". One can quote sevearal such instances, but can anyone quote

where any azhwAr has used the word "kal" to mention "sripadam". If one

wants to interpert we can say "cirrum siru kalE vandu" means "en siru kalal

vanduunnai sevittu". We have to see in conjunction with the next line

where piratti exclaims "un porramarai adiyE porrum porul kelai". When She

uses in the second passage "porramarai adi", then the first passage "kalE"

is "early morning time". It is once again my sincere request not to

re-write the vyAkyanams of poorvachariyArs.

 

Best Regards

 

G. Sundarrajan

PT. Aneka Kimia Raya Tbk

Wisma AKR, Jalan Panjang No.5,

Kebon Jeruk

Jakarta 11530

Tel : 62-21-5311110 Extn : 898

Fax : 62-21-5311388

Mobile : 0811193742

[Guest guest]

Dear Nanmaran,

 

 

I think this is a good point. Similar stuff has been said about

Madhvabhasya, since many meanings are taken from individual letters and

syllables out of context. for example aham bramhasmi is taken as aheyam

(not flawed) bramha - smi(lakshmi) etc, while the direct meaning is "I am

Brahman".

 

Regards,

 

Krishna

 

 

Nanmaaran [nanmaaran]

Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:02 PM

bhakti-list

Re: chitranchiru kaale!!

 

 

Dear Friends,

We cannot take literal meaning for individual words as it is. If so, can we

take "naay" in nORRu suvarkkam (10th paasuram in thirupaavai) referring to

DOG? Let us not wear mere bhakthi glass alone and try to relate all words to

perumaaL. Essence of the paasuram got out of the sequence of words is

important than meaning of individual words.

Regards,

Nanmaaran

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear BhAgavatas,

 

I agree with Sri Hari Krishnan. If Sri Visu and others

want to enjoy this pasuram while considering the divine

kutti (small) leg of Sri Krishna, that's a good

anubhavam. I am reminded of the oft quoted episode of

a bhAgavata singing "mara prabhu:" instead of "amara

prabhu:" in Sahasranamam and Him enjoying that.

 

Having said that, however, it is also important to

recognize this as a new anubhavam but not in tune

with prior interpretations as well as not being

gramattically correct.

 

I have already gone through once showing that the

un and nee cannot go with the leg (kAl) and that

they would go with the true vocative in this

pasuram which is Govinda. Also, Azhvars are not in

the habit of addressing His divine avayas as kAlE,

kaiyE, etc.

 

In this note I will address the new points raised by

Sri Visu.

 

1. The context of early morning is important in a number

of ways. The fact dawn is used is not just because it is

related to the month of mArgazhi. Chittramcirukale is

recited in Srivaishnava households every day of the

year - not just mArgazhi. There is a very compelling

reason behind this. Neither is the dawn restricted to

a single month nor does it simply refer to the physical

waking up alone. It refers to the spiritual awakening

as well (agak kaN and puRak kaN). Andal's advise is

that once you wake up physically and spiritually, do

not waste much time after that; seek His lotus feet and

surrender immediately. Having walked us through

multiple stages her final advice is just that. So,

interpreting kAlE as dawn does not restrict it in any

way to margazhi month alone. However, that usage does

flow with the context of the prior pasurams thus far

in Thiruppavai.

 

Regarding the need for reference to His lotus feet in

the final pasurams (this is not proven as required),

that is taken care of through the use of poRRAmaRai adi

pORRum, therefore there is no need to search for it in

kAlE.

 

2. Song #5 (mAyanai) is also an exception as well as

#30. Thanks for bringing up this point though - I had

not noted this before in the pasurams. However, note

even in the pasuram anRivvulagam, a case can be made

that it is not necessarily in the vocative. Aside from

that, the vocative is used in the first five lines as

you mentioned and it is the same in pasuram 29 as well.

It happens in the fifth line when she calls Govinda!

 

3. See above. Govinda is the vocative, so no need to

interpret kAlE as the vocative.

 

4. The use of kAlE instead of kAlai or kAlam has been

addressed by vyakhyadars. I will try to get the

reference and post it later.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

 

--- Visu9 wrote:

> 1. First context: The objection was that this /pAcuram

> being one sung in the month of /mArkaZi puts its weight

> in favor of the interpretation as "early morning". I beg

> to differ from this. This /pAcuram is in practice the

> last song of /tirup/pAvai. The next piece (# 30) is a

> concluding piece identifying the authoress. It is

> traditional in our culture to dedicate the lost song to

> the lotus feet of the Lord. Compare for example the last

> piece of the analogous poem: /tiru/vem/pAvai of Sri

> /MaNikka/vAcakar: /pORRI un ponnaTi pORRI, etc.

>

> Now, being the lost song, it needs an address. This

> address is also traditionally the first line. Thus the

> interpretation as leg is more in context than the other

> interpretation, which would limit the song to be sung

> ONLY during the month of /mArkaZi. That would be a pity,

> given the enormous weight of the prayer part, where

> /ANTAL is emphatic about her services and the services of

> her friends and followers being available only to the

> Lord [and hence His /aTiyArs].

>

> 2. Examining more carefully one sees that the structure

> of /tirup/pAvai songs follows a general format: The first

> few lines (two to five lines) form a single sentence or

> address statement and sing the glory of the Lord. These

> lines generally contain an address. The single exception

> is /pAcuram No. 22.

>

> 3. An address generally contains a vocative exclamation.

> Thus, in the current song under discussion (/pAcuram

> #29), /poR/tAmarai aTI is not in vocative case.

> /ciRRaJ/ciRu/kAlE is in vocative case. This was Shri

> /maNi's point too.

>

> 4. If the phrase uses /kAlai and not /kAlE, there would

> be no dispute whatsoever. If /kAlE means morning, /ANTAL

> would be the first one to have used such an expression

> for the morning.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

Moreover, according to tamil ilakkiyam rules, same word for same meaning should

not be used in a song. That is "kooriyathu kooRal"(punaruddhi) which is not

allowed. So let us not introduce flaw in Great Andal's paasuram and defame her

in literary values.

Regards,

Nanmaaran

Hari Krishnan wrote:I agree with you. It is not possible by rules of grammar to

interpret chitranchiru kaale as 'the feet of the Lord.' Though there is still

scope for the singular to represent a pair (as questioned in another mail - like

'un adi saranE' adi (singular) representing the feet), it is not possible to use

the adjective 'chitranchiru' to feet. Let it me make it very short now for

constraints of time. We know that the words 'paadhi' and 'arai' represent half.

One cannot say 'paadhi mani' for half an hour. If the adjective is for the feet,

it should have been 'chinnam siru kaale' and not 'chitram siru kaale.'

[Guest guest]

Dear sri vaishnava perunthagaiyeer,

 

Since Sri Nanmaran has put across a point related to grammar, I also would

like to put forth the following on the grammar front on the same paasuram

which is under discussion in the list.

 

First the back ground.

 

In paasuram 28 the last line is iraivaa nee thaaraai parai - meaning - oh

god please give me the 'parai' - grammatically here it is a request by the

first person to the second person.

 

[ the first person can be singular or plural as per the context, which in

this case is 'to us' - being plural]

 

In paasuram 29

 

first line 'vanthu unnai sEviththu' - meaning a first person [implied or

identified, may be singular or plural- in the present context plural - as

understood from the word engaLai in next line] came and did the prostration

to the second person.

 

Next is "Un poRRaamarai adiyE pORRum -- kELaai" - again the first person

request/s the second person to listen what he/ she / they are doing -

'please listen to the sthOthram which I am / we are doing'.

 

"PeRram mEiththu uNNum kulaththil piRanthu nee kuRREval engalai" - here

again second person 'nee' and first person 'engaLai' are involved in

conversation in this line.

 

'IRRaip paRai koLvaan' - from the first and second persons involved in the

previous lines, suddenly the gear or scene changes to third person singular

in masculine gender.

 

actually the person/s who came and did all the sthOthram are women,

as we know from previous 28 paasurams.

Further iRRai is today - inRu - so present tense is to be used

whereas what is used is 'koLvaan' is future tense.

 

Next line again changed to anRu kaaN gOvindhaa - again between first person

and second - 'hey gOvindhaa - please see'.

 

Next - 'un thannOdu uravEl namakku' - yet once again between first and

second person.

 

Last line - 'maRRai nam kaamangaL maaRRu' - again a command to the second

person by the first person.

 

Why then suddenly a third person is introduced and that too in masculine

gender, rather than feminine in the line 'IRRaip paRai koLvaan'?

 

Since I am not strong in tamil grammar, I request learned bhagavathaas to

elucidate.

 

To add a few lines on TCA venkatesan's point that whether it is all that the

meaning what Sri PC swamy has given for the 'chiRRam siru kaalE'

no.

Sri Swamy has really more than 15 points on this chiRRam siru kaalE

and one among them is this point of siru am siru kaal.

In that quote also from 'kOzhi --- up to the point of 'siRidhE

velippatta azhagiya siRiya kaal' is by sri PC swamy

later points relating to daddy and daughter are by MGV in enjoying

that krishNa which he wanted to share with all.

 

No offences meant to any body or any of the poorvaacharyaas, or their

vyaakhyaanams intentionally or unintentionally except to get an elucidation

on the grammar front.

 

Dhasan

 

Vasudevan m.g.

 

 

 

Nanmaaran [sMTP:nanmaaran]

Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:59 AM

bhakti-list

Re: chitranchiru kaale!!

 

Dear Friends,

Moreover, according to tamil ilakkiyam rules, same word for same

meaning should not be used in a song. That is "kooriyathu kooRal"

(punaruddhi) which is not allowed. So let us not introduce flaw in Great

Andal's paasuram and defame her in literary values.

Regards, Nanmaaran

 

Hari Krishnan wrote:I agree with you. It is not possible by rules of

grammar to interpret chitranchiru kaale as 'the feet of the Lord.' Though

there is still scope for the singular to represent a pair (as questioned in

another mail - like 'un adi saranE' adi (singular) representing the feet, it

is not possible to use the adjective 'chitranchiru' to feet. Let it me make

it very short now for constraints of time. We know that the words 'paadhi'

and 'arai' represent half. One cannot say 'paadhi mani' for half an hour. If

the adjective is for the feet, it should have been 'chinnam siru kaale' and

not 'chitram siru kaale.'

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

Here "kolvaan" is vinaiyecham not vinaimuRRu..and hence does not point to any

gender. Take an example.. "nangu vilanguvaan vEndi" here vilanguvaan does not

mean any male gender and means,"to understand". So in this paasuram, we have to

read as "iRRai parai koLvaan anru" ..as one phrase.which means that "iam not for

this immediate benefit alone..but for future births also.(which is said in the

next lines as "iRRaikkum EzEzhu piRavikkum"..

Regards,

Nanmaaran

 

"M.G.Vasudevan" wrote:

> 'IRRaip paRai koLvaan' - from the first and second persons involved in the

> previous lines, suddenly the gear or scene changes to third person singular

> in masculine gender.

 

[...]

> Why then suddenly a third person is introduced and that too in masculine

> gender, rather than feminine in the line 'IRRaip paRai koLvaan'?

> Since I am not strong in tamil grammar, I request learned bhagavathaas to

> elucidate.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nanmaran,

 

Well said. Due to time constraints the answering of this mail on 'koLvaan'

interepreting it as masculine gender has been slipping for sometime now.

 

'vAn, pAn pAkkina vinai echcham' (sutram 343) says Nannool, the ancinet book on

Tamil grammar. 'vinai echcham has three suffixes and they are vAn, pAn, pAkku

(like Edham padu *paakku* arindhu...)

 

the '-vaan' simply stands for 'for the purpose of'. 'It is not for the purpose

of immediate benefits,' is what Andal states through the verse.

 

There are a few more points like the coinage 'siRRam siru kaalE' was preferred

over 'chinnam siru kaal' due to the dictates of prosody. I will answer them.

It is not for the purpose of defending, or to establish 'so and so's' argument

is better or 'such-and-such' interpretation is good. My purpose is to stand by

what is correct rather than what seems to be good.

 

Regards,

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

-

"Nanmaaran" <nanmaaran

<bhakti-list>

Monday, September 30, 2002 6:36 PM

RE: chitranchiru kaale!!

 

 

| Dear Sir,

| Here "kolvaan" is vinaiyecham not vinaimuRRu..and hence does not point to any

gender. Take an example.. "nangu vilanguvaan vEndi" here vilanguvaan does not

mean any male gender and means,"to understand". So in this paasuram, we have to

read as "iRRai parai koLvaan anru" ..as one phrase.which means that "iam not for

this immediate benefit alone..but for future births also.(which is said in the

next lines as "iRRaikkum EzEzhu piRavikkum"..

| Regards,

| Nanmaaran