Tyagaraja and Dikshitar followed different systems when it came to raga classification. Tyagaraja adhered to the melakarta scheme proposed by Govinda, while Dikshitar remained steadfast to the raganga raga system put forth by Muddu Venkatamakhi. Both systems share certain commonalities, have areas of overlap, and also possess very distinct features. Unsurprisingly, the compositions of these two doyens differ widely. They are structurally different, with one foregrounding emotional expression and the other embodying scholarship and a sense of mystique. Both of them have composed in the same ragas, in ragas that share a name yet differ substantially, and in different ragas that share characteristic phrases.
Comparing and contrasting the two has always been an exercise rich in intrigue. It was therefore no surprise that the first lecture of the day, titled “A Comparative Study of Ragas as Handled by Tyagaraja and Dikshitar,” presented by Vidushi Amritha Murali, was one I was especially keen to listen to.
Amritha began by selecting three pairs of ragas to establish the differences between the two systems: Vegavahini and Chakravaham, Kokilaravam and Kokilapriya, and Tarangini and Charukesi. She demonstrated that even when the swaras are identical, the approach and treatment are so different that one cannot mistake one school for the other. As a lay listener, I must admit that I am more partial to the twists and turns of Dikshitar than to the more linear approach often associated with Tyagaraja. Ada Modi Galade, sweet as it sounds, takes second place to the more beguiling Maye Tvam Yahi in my personal playlist.
In another dimension, it is interesting to note that Dikshitar, remaining true to his chosen system, did not compose in Kharaharapriya or Harikambhoji, while Tyagaraja did compose in Sri raga and Kedaragaula. Even in these shared ragas, however, there is a clear difference in his approach when compared to Dikshitar’s handling. Amritha explained these distinctions beautifully and illustrated them by singing carefully chosen phrases.
Dikshitar, for his part, was clearly aware of the alternate system, as evidenced by his subtle acknowledgments of it within his compositions. A well known example is the use of the phrase Nata Bhairavi in his Reetigowlai composition Sri Neelotpala Nayike. Amritha discussed this raga in detail, bringing out Dikshitar’s distinctive phrases in all their richness.
She then turned her attention to the so-called gana ragas, such as Shankarabharanam, Todi, Kambhoji, and Kalyani, which are frequently heard on the concert platform. Even here, the approaches of Tyagaraja and Dikshitar diverge significantly. As listeners, we are the beneficiaries of these contrasting visions, for they have left behind a corpus that is unlikely to ever be equaled.
Saraswati Manohari, Devakriya, Shuddha Saveri, Kalavati, Narayani, Manohari, Kaapi, and Hindolam were among the other ragas that Amritha chose to discuss and illustrate through her singing. Ananda Bhairavi, Sahana, Salaga Bhairavi, Gangatarangini, Gangeyabhushani, Bhogachayanata, and Vagadeeshwari were mentioned briefly, constrained only by the limits of time. Forty five minutes simply is not enough to do justice to this topic.
Shriram was visibly proud of his student’s presentation, and rightly so. That the hall was full and overflowing stood as testimony to the enduring appeal of the two great composers, the richness of the topic, the excellence of the presenter, and the quality of the lecture itself. This was undoubtedly one of the finest lectures of this year’s series thus far. Kudos to Amritha!
Born in Tiruvarur, Dikshitar’s journey took him to Varanasi, Kanchipuram, Chidambaram, Tiruchirappalli, and several other places, many of which are renowned for their Shiva temples. The second lecture of the day was titled “Iconographic Representations of Lord Shiva in Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Kritis” and was presented by Dr. Chithra Madhavan and Dr. Gayathri Girish. I have listened to many lectures on history and temple architecture by Dr. Chithra in the past, so I was looking forward to what I expected would be a grand tour of the temples that Dikshitar had sung about.
Dr. Chithra began with an overview of the various forms of Shiva and explained their shared iconographic features, starting with Somaskanda. Some of the images of Chola era bronzes that she showed were breathtaking. The Pallava period sculptures at Mamallapuram, which predate the Cholas, stand as evidence of the antiquity of the tradition of depicting Shiva and Parvati together with their son Skanda.
The first Dikshitar composition taken up for discussion was on the Ekambaranathar temple in Kanchipuram, where both the Prithvi Lingam and the Somaskanda panel are referenced. Another composition featuring Somaskanda, unsurprisingly, is associated with the Tiruvarur temple. Dr. Gayathri sang portions from both kritis, highlighting the specific iconographic details described in the lyrics. Dr. Chithra explained that the absence of Ganesha in these depictions is due to the fact that the earliest image of Ganesha from Vatapi dates to a later period than these sculptures.
The next form discussed was Nataraja, and naturally, the discussion began with Chidambaram. Dr. Chithra’s explanations brought to light Dikshitar’s keen powers of observation, even in compositions that I have heard many times before. I found myself wondering how Dikshitar noticed such minute details and wove them so seamlessly into his compositions. With Dr. Chithra’s narration, the Chola bronzes seemed to come alive. I was left in awe of the richness of our cultural heritage, and at the same time felt a sense of loss at how much of it has faded over time. Ananda Natana Prakasam and Chitambara Nataraja Murthim were the two compositions that Dr. Gayathri used to illustrate the iconography as described by Dikshitar.
The third form taken up was Dakshinamurti. The discussion on the banyan tree without aerial roots and the image of Veenadhara Dakshinamurti revealed how deeply and thoughtfully art was pursued in those times. The compositions chosen for this form were Sri Dakshinamurthim in raga Phenadyuti and Dakshinamurthe in Shankarabharanam.
Given the time constraints, only these three forms could be discussed, though it was clear that this was merely the tip of the iceberg. The intersection of visual art and music opens up an entirely new way of appreciating both disciplines. If Shriram was proud of his student after the first lecture of the day, he was equally proud of Dr. Chithra, who had been his school classmate. He added further insights into some of the subtle details that Dikshitar had embedded in the compositions discussed.
Several lectures by V. Sriram on related topics had prepared me well to appreciate this session more deeply, and I owe him credit for that foundation. By the end, one is left astonished by the artistic achievements of the Pallavas and the Cholas, and by the sheer brilliance of Dikshitar.
Two exceptional lectures made the day memorable, and I am grateful to everyone involved for sharing their knowledge.
0 comments:
Post a Comment