alaMkaara Saastram - Flames, Flames and Flames
Sreenivas Paruchuri (sreeni@ktpsp1.uni-paderborn.de)
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:53:58 +0100 (MET)
I hope you read the subject line! So, you are warned!! --Sreenivas
--------------------------------------
> Subject: alaMkAramulu #4 adhikAlaMkAramu (2)
> The syllable OM has got two vowels and a consonant sound (telugu) in it.
> The "satvaguNa" (one of the three basic qualities of Nature) is the power
> behind the creation.
> The "rajOguNa" is the power behind the continuance.
Sri Madhava Kumar Turumella continuuuuuuuuuuuues his series of discourses
on "alankaara Saastra" and side by gives lectures on "vEdaanta" .....
<cut, cut, snip, snip, cut,.....>
No offense intended!
> (1) The sanskrit sloka is taken from the CaMdrAlOka, supposed to be
> written by KaLidAsa.
> (2) The telugu translation poem is written by ADidaM soorakavi.
So, now coming to "cornering" the opponent; i.e our telusaa laakshaNika
I understand that he wants to 'educate' telusaa folks in his own way.
But he is not willing (?) to dig a little deep and find out the real
author of _chadraalOka_. Nor is he willing to educate himself about some
"basics" of Sanskrit Poetics, like; How far was this "Saastra" developed
during Kaalidaasa's times? What did aestheticians like MammaTa, Bhaamaha,
Ruyyaka, who certainly belonged to post-KD's period, say? Is there at all
a work by name _CL_ attributed to KD and found (/catalogued) somewhere?
This tradition - a la present series of discourses by MT - seems to be the
hallmark of Indian Teaching in general, i.e. the "guru" only teaches, but
never gets questioned :-)!
Apparently, the motto here seems to be "the older, the better"!
When questioned about the authorship, he comes up with - nothing but -
a rhetorical question: 'what JayadEva is doing with alankaara Saastra'
AND goes on to question a scholor like Akkiraju Umakantam! Do you mean
that JayadEva only described the love between Krishna and Raadha? Also,
how about learning something about A.Umakantam? Given his track record;
i.e. his -mostly- archaic views why did he have to attack aDidam
soorakavi! Have you tried to find out? Have you forgotten that AU himself
believed in attributing "divinity" to some of the major works/epics in
Telugu, and vehemently opposed modern movements like "bhaava kawitwam"
and using colloq. Telugu in text books (BTW pl. see how he wrote his
name!)? Why didn't he, then, immediately jump in, when he got a chance (!)
to support another such "myth". Perhaps A.U hated aDidam!? Maadhava gaaru
may enlighten us! By the by, may I also suggest, to inform a little more
about how "appakaveeyam", (the never existed!) "aandhra Sabda cintaamaNi"
etc. were written, rather how those myths/stories were concocted!
I appreciate your good intentions to teach alamkaara-s, but for
ordinary mortals like me you have to come down a few steps from your
high pedestal, I am afraid to say. Why not take IMO a simple book like
"Five Pundits Guide" and teach us some "basic" alaMkaaraalu!
> (3) I wrote the notes/explanation by myself. So if anybody wants to
> use/quote any of these articles anywhere please let me know in advance.
mahaaSayaa! do you also intend to publish this work on a later date!?
> > ps: Evidently, Sree Madhav Kumar likes aDidamu soorakavi and his
> > nemesis rEkapalli sOmanatha kavi equally!!
> Yes! I like him.
Do you really mean it??!!
At last, you missed the main question; i.e to list those alamkaara-s
in that "tricky" poem you posted, and explain the aesthetic beauty in
it; i.e in describing a "pilli"!
Regards, --Sreenivas