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

S Krishna mahadevasiva at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri Apr 10 00:40:45 UTC 1998

Vidyasankar Sundaresan writes:

<<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. >>

  The previous words ( prior to the last two sentences that go:
"brahmaya prakAzin(I/i).....sAmarasya nidarzin(i/I)" )is "
prItiyuktamacchittam vilayatu". From what I've heard and read, the word
"vilayatu" can translate as "embrace" or "clasp"..In otherwords,
if "vilayatu" is a yamakAlaGkAra in that it is meaningful when taken
 in conjuction with the previous words and also when taken all by
itself, we have a situation where Dikshitar says "vilayatu [mAm
implicit]" followed by the four qualifiers of kamalAmbA which would then
have to be in the sambodhana prathamA resulting in i-kAram. One example(
out of many) of a whole kr*ti where there is a verb in the begining
followed by a list of qualifiers is "svAminAtha paripAlaya" in nATa.
(i.e. there is a compositional similarity between the last part of the
Ahiri kr*ti in question and the nATa kr*ti)

  AS you pointed out, the last kr*ti refers to all the vibhaktis for a
specific reason i.e. description of the bindu in the zrIyantra; I
therefore believe that the order of the  vibhaktis would also be
maintained here which is a good reason for his ending the kr*ti in
sambOdhana prathamA.

Another small point in regard to your nice write up about the difficulty
in tracing Telugu/Tamil elements in Dikshitar:

<< Syama Sastri, the other famous composer, belonged to the
Telugu speaking dharmakartA family of the Kanchi Kamakshi temple.>>

FRom what I have read, the kAmAkSi temple to which zyAma zAstri's
ancestors were attached to a temple in the modern kurnool dist of
Andhra, from where they escaped to tanjAvUr because of muslim
persecution. The  family diety, bangAru kAmakSi was then installed in
the tanjAvur district itself. It is also difficult to think that zyAma
zAstri'd relatives would have settled down in kAncipuram ( very close to
Arcot) when they were fleeing muslim persecution because the Nawabs of
Arcot also had a reputation for Hindu-baiting. Prof Paul Younger (
"Temple of the dancing Sivan") mentions this as the reason for the
dIkSitars of cidambaram shifting the mUla vigraha of the cidambaram
temple in the 17th-18th centuries to tanjAvUr, where there was no
persecution by the Hindu Bhonsle dynasty.

<<and whether the correct spelling should be
>muttusvAmi or muddusvAmi is a moot point, although Telugu was certainly
more fashionable then than Tamil.>>

Couldn't agree with you more! It seems to have been common for people
in that time to have interpreted a name in more than one away, and  such
that  it made sense to the speakers of a given tongue. So while
muttu makes sense to Tamilians, muddu makes sense to telugus. This
is the probably the reason why Tamil books prefer muttu over muddu
( no distinction orthographically) whereas in telugu, "muddu" is
explicitly written out. As another example, the letters of the words
"nama: sivAya" are interpreted in Tamil and Samskrt differently and are
both considered valid.


Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list