Kannada vacanas

[S Krishna]

Robery writes:
<<Alas: behold the result, on the one hand, of excessive modesty on the
part of Kannada people in publicising their treasures, and, on the other
hand, of limited inquisitiveness to date in the scholarly community>>.

Yep, couldn't agree with you more....IS it mere coicidence that none of
the participants in the kannaDa vacana thread all are non-Kannada?
(That; when you see Kannada sounding-looking names on the list...)
It is a pity that due to lack of participation by KAnnadigas/Kannada
scholars matters have to be resolved by looking up texts whose origins
are far removed from Karnataka instead of refering to local texts...


<<Multiple deities, or manifestations of one deity? This brings up the
complex issue of "little traditions" vs. inclusivistic "great
traditions", but also the religio-psychological (drat, how does one say
this in English? I want to say: "religionspsychologische") question of
localisation of the divine and how the devotee relates to the divinity
in its local(ised) form. If Kaaginele Kee;sava and Vi.t.thala of
Pandharpur are to be thought of as 'multiple deities' of the Maadhvas,
one could argue that the same ought to be true of, e.g.,
Kuu.dalasa:ngamadeeva and Guhee;svara among the Virasaivas.>>

What I had in mind was that the dAsakUTa poets who used a "ankita" that
they took for THEMSELVES allowed them ( for lack of a better expression)
to write about dieties as *diverse* as ziva,kr*SNa,rAma
and gaNapati(purandara dAsa) or gaNESa,hanumAn, kr*SNa( viTThala dAsa)
while the vIrazaiva tendency of not putting in their name "restricted"
them( so to speak) to only ONE FORM OF A given diety ( mahAdEvi
does not refer to kUDalasangama dEva nor does allama prabhu refer to
"cennamallikArjuna")...otherwise I agree with what you have to say below

>Literarily, we can speak of a 'stylistic' difference; but why should it
be there in the first place? In Virasaivism, the devotee ultimately
realises his / her essential unity with Siva, whereas in Dvaita such a
notion is considered perditious hybris, and individuality never ceases
to be. Thus in the theology of the daasas an explicit placing in the
foreground of the individual and a stressing of the daasa's personal
relationship with God (_Purandaradaasa's_ Vi.t.thala, etc.) makes sense
(in view of religious polemics of the time), whereas in Virasaivism
individuality, which is worldly, is played down. >>

<<We should perhaps also note that Kannada scholars agree that the use
of such signatures as a literary device among the daasas has been
borrowed from the Virasaiva ;sara.nas. If the ;sara.nas had never had
such a usage, then the daasas might never have developed it.>>

This is interesting...you mean that the 10th century poets pampa, ponna
and ronna never used an ankita? ..also thanks for the
"kUDalasangamadEva" thing...is there any difference between kuDala,
 and kUDala  since both versions appear in basava's "vacanas"..Doesn't
he also refer to "kUDala" by some other variant? What is the
significance of these variants?

Looking forward to your reply,

Regards,
Krishna




>
>Robert Zydenbos
>zydenbos at flevoland.xs4all.nl
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com