muttusvAmi dIkshitar (was Re: navagraha worship ...)

Vidyasankar Sundaresan vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Apr 9 18:53:35 UTC 1998

S Krishna <mahadevasiva at HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

><<The sambodhana is present in the word cinmAtre, which occurs in the
>sentence which uses the dative case - SrI mAtre namaste cinmAtre.>>
>I doubt this since :
>1.the correct sambOdhana prathamA should be mAta:( can become mAtar.h)
>but making mAta: or mAtar.h  "mAtrE" is too much of a jump.
>2. mAtrE is the caturthi of mAtr* and makes sense in the sentence.

The sentence in question is - SrImAtrE namastE, cinmAtrE, sevita ramA
harikA vidhAtrE. (SrI)mAtrE is the correct dative form for the root
(SrI)mAtR. However, the root for (cin)mAtrE is not (cin)mAtR, but
cinmAtrA, which gets modified to mAtrE in the sambodhana (as in sItA ->
sItE). The implied reference is to the fourth name in the lalitA
sahasranAma, cidagni-kuNDa-sambhUtA. The mUkapancaSati also begins
kAraNa-para-cid-rUpA. Usually in the SAkta literature, brahma/Siva is
san-mAtra, while Sakti is cin-mAtrA, and Siva-Sakty-aikya is Ananda. But
the upanishadic brahman is also sac-cid-Ananda, and in other kRtis,
dIkshitar refers to Siva as sac-cid-Ananda-mAtram, using the dvitIyA
vibhakti form of mAtraH.

>3. If the sambOdhana prathamA is used here, again the correct order  of
>the vibhaktis gets violated. This would  then have the same status as
>that of the Paraj kr*ti.

Not really, for two reasons.

1. The sambodhana usually requires another vibhakti (most often the
dative) in the course of the sentence, except when the emphasis shifts
from the object/person being called, to the caller (e.g. kRshNa! mAM
pAlaya). Even in the nArayaNa bhaTTattiri example you quote, the
sentence is "kRshNa! tubhyam namaH," which involves the dative form
tubhyam, if not kRshNAya. Note that "kRshNAya tubhyam namaH" would be an
equally valid construction, with an implied sambodhana in it. On the
other hand, in the Ahiri kRti, if we read brahmamaya prakASini, etc.,
using the sambodhana, there is no verb to go with it. It is not like
dIkshitar to introduce a sambodhana and leave it hanging, without
completing the sentence.

2. The symbolism in the navAvaraNa kRtis is that of the SrIvidyA, where
the bindu at the center is the source of the universe. In this set of
compositions, dIkshitar first follows the samhAra-krama, going inwards
along the order of eight vibhaktis. Each kRti describes the various
cakras, starting from the bhUpura to the trikONa. The ninth composition,
in Ahiri, describes the bindu, the innermost cakra in the SrIyantra
(SrIpura bindu madhyastha ...). As the bindu is considered the ultimate
source of everything, dIkshitar indicates this by using all the
vibhaktis in the course of this composition. This is sRshTi-krama in a
nutshell. This is also implied in the words
kAdi-hAdi-sAdi-mantra-rUpiNyAH, a reference to the SrIvidyA mantra,
which is usually interpreted in terms of sRshTi-krama in the samayAcAra.
So there is a very valid reason why all the vibhaktis are used in the
Ahiri kRti. There is no such symbolism for the Pharaj kRti on Sukra.


ps.1. to Sarma - the doubt about the anupallavi was not with respect to
the Ahiri navAvaraNa song, but with respect to the Pharas song on Sukra.

ps.2. to Ganesan and Sarma - It is very difficult to separate out
Tamil/Kannada/Telugu elements in the Dikshitar families. The immediate
family of Muttusvami Dikshitar hailed from Virinchipuram near
Kanchipuram, where there is heavy Telugu influence. The family might
have well been originally Telugu speakers. Govinda Dikshita, the father
of Venkatamakhi, was a Kannada speaking Brahmin belonging to the Hoysala
Karnataka group, who migrated to the Tanjavur region. Ramasvami
Dishitar, Muttusvami's father, studied music with a descendent of
Venkatamakhi. Syama Sastri, the other famous composer, belonged to the
Telugu speaking dharmakartA family of the Kanchi Kamakshi temple. There
was considerable inter-marriage among Kannada and Telugu Brahmin
families which settled in Tamil Nadu during late Vijayanagara times.
Their common Sanskritic heritage may have been more important to them
than the other languages, and whether the correct spelling should be
muttusvAmi or muddusvAmi is a moot point, although Telugu was certainly
more fashionable then than Tamil.

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list