periya tirumozhi (9:4) ~~ "puLLANi emperumAn"

[Guest guest]

Re: Periya Thirumozhi 9.4- "PullaaNi Emperumaan..."

Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:25:39 GMT

"Madhavakkannan V" <srivaishnavan

 

----------------------

 

Sri Madhavakkannan's intention to disseminate periya-tiru-mozhi (p.t.)

is highly commendable. tiru-mangai-AzhvAr 'aruLi-c-cheyal'

offers the most pleasurable experience in life to think of, given that

'kaliyan' is a sensuous poet and his diction the classical precedent

for the great kamban.

 

Translation is a creative exercise of literary devotion, but always

remains a hazard which doubles when the beneficiary is outside of

the linguistic family of the source language. In this case, p.t. is being

offered in English. Add to this that the basic work is scripture,

the spirit mystical and the language sensuous drawing upon a

staggering tropical flora and fauna of the poet's actual geographical-

and unencompassable mental landscape.

 

Some specifics, some cautions ?

 

The classical 'vyAkhyAnam' of periya-vAcchAn-piLLai and the

'divyArtha-deepikai' commentary of kAnchi PB aNNangarAchArya

svAmi on p.t. highly commended for personal enjoyment of this great

book of the 'aruLi-c-cheyal' scripture, but these should be the

required reading for one who sets out to expound it. As for rendering

the scripture into the language of Shakespeare and Milton, one is awed

even to retrospect an inventory of required reading in that language.

This would give an idea of the language training and intellectual

nourishment one should have had in approaching anything so precious

as p.t. , and to render p.t. in the English language.

 

Having proposed what tools to acquire in order to discover and

disseminate and translate p.t., and risking the blame of pedantry,

I concede there is a need

 

(1) yes, to emote on the sensuousness of the poetry;

(2) yes, too, to reach it to the non-Tamil students (which should

also stand for persons of Tamil SrivaishNava birth but raised

in other language climes); and

(3) oh yes, and most certainly, to put it all in popular language.

 

Only, let emotions steer clear of mushiness and the awfully

touchy-feeley treacle of, say, the eminently popular swamiji-cola

promoters of the Tamil weekly of Kilpauk suburb of Chennai

that was Madras. (Any reader is free to opt out of my own

instant cocktail of mixed metaphors here.)

 

Well, what do have we here ?

"pAvAi, idu namak-k-Or pAnmAi-yE AkAdE!"

(="This, dear, would do no good to us !"),

has been rendered as:

"paavaay! idhu namakkOr paanmaiyE agaadhE!- Oh my dear friend!

This husky voice of these cute birds (anRil) residing in this dense garden,

torments me more than that of the sharp spear on the wounds, that has

already been caused by manmathan's arrow."

Also, it is in vain one searches the original on the unwarranted charge,

"wounds, that has already been caused by manmathan's arrow."

And, time to profit by bhakti-list roman spelling of Tamil / Sanskrit

words. "agaadhE !" (= down the bottomless) "AkAdE !" (= won't do).

 

In verse 2, "mAl-Aki-p-pon-payandEn!" (="His spell, this pallor of mine!")

is offered in maudlin and berserk sensationalism,

"simply flabbergasted and haunted by His such wonderful acts. He has

driven me completely crazee. I am suffering from "pasalai" disease (the

pangs of separation)."

This to be read with what there is on verse 5,

"Okay. I will now listen to you."

Even with the combined and desirable objectives of popularising p.t.

among non-Tamils, this hurts, driving one crazy over "crazee" which is not

"Okay" at all. The best of intentions cannot sacrifice scriptural dignity

and lyrical elegance at any time. Can someone please appeal against slang

usage 'on' our scripture, and banish slang to the dear TV sit-coms where

it belongs?

 

[[ **The tiru-p-pullANi decad (9:4) is a remarkable shovel-ful from

kaliyan's gem-pit. For those who like to have basic information about the

'divya-dESam', tiru-p-pullANi, it is about 60 km to the west of

Rameshwaram at the southern tip (kOTi-k-karai) of India, identified as

the spot where Sri-rAma raised the bridge across the sea to Sri Lanka.

The temple is quite sprawling in extent. The presiding deity is

Adi-jagan-nAtha-p-perumAL flanked by Sri-dEvi and bhU-dEvi.

The perumAL is manifest in the same seated posture as kooDal-azhakar

in Madurai, deiva-nAyakan in vAna-mA-malai, vaikunTha-nAthan in

Kanchipuram etc.

 

[[**There are two other perumaL sub-shrines here ~~ Sri-rAma

with his bow kOdanDam, and ananta-SAyee (the couch being wrongly

described as rush-mattress, darbha-Sayanam, merely to link it with the

word pul-aNai). The name given in the present p.t. decad, namely,

deiva-c-chilaiyAr is assigned to Adi-jagan-nAtha but, speaking for

myself, it seems more appropriate to Sri-rAma here. Incidentally,

deiva-c-chilaiyAr was the name of a celebrated later-day commentator

on the Tamil grammar classic tol-kAppiam.]]

 

The above two-para insert leads us to Verse 3 which is a plea to report

the sweet-heart's ailment to "MOST CHARMING Emperumaan

who has the Divine Bow in his resplendent Hand". This rush of

epithets is rather a rash charge on the beautiful name "deiva-c-chilaiyAr"

(= sudhanvA, the one with the divine bow), a name which is kaliyan's

offering to the Lord, as ' vAna-mA-malai ' is of nam-m-AzhvAr and

'SrinivAsa' of rAmAnuja to tiru-vEnkaTam-uDaiyAn.

 

'deiva-c-chilaiyAr' is, accordingly, a proper noun (' rooDhee-nAmam ')

in the 'sampradAyam', like nArAyaNa. The name should be retained

as such in a translation, even though the etymology and / or meaning of

a proper name may be given in a note.

 

Anyone who has run and read the sikh scripture, Adi-granth-sAhib,

(also known as hari-mandir-sAhib) would know that sikh-ism is a

vaishNav religion. This sacred book has been translated faithfully

into English by Metcaulfe, but a recent (1960's ?) and much-publicised

'English' translation by Gopal Singh uses the word 'God' all the way

through the exciting spectrum of names (like hari, rAm, gOvind,

nArAyaN, vAs-dEv, purakh (= purush), Sripati, padmA-pati,

kEsO, mAdhO etc) which occur every now and then as one reads this

scripture. The substitution of ' God ' is not only bland and wrong by

scripture-translation etiquette, but effectively suppresses the vaishNava

character of the religion itself. We have before us the splendid example

of the English translation of the Bible (A.V.) which retains the Hebraic

and Aramaic and Greek names as such.

 

I reiterate my respect for Sri Madhavakkannan's desire to propagate

periya-tirumozhi scripture, and these remarks are offered only as a plea

for care in any exercise of writing on or translating scripture.

 

~~ aDiyEn rAmAnuja-dAsan, tirumanjanam Sundara Rajan.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

Dear Sriman Sundararajan Swamin,

 

Thanks very much for sharing your excellent anubhavams on Num Kaliyan's Periya

Thirumozhi. Thanks for your words of encouragement and your

"thirutthipaNikoLLal". it is adiyEn's Bhagyam that my posts are getting blessed

by DevarIr's kataaksham. I am sure that will make them more bearable. "iLaiyapun

kavithaiyElum EmpiraaRkku iniyavaaRE.. "

 

Thanks again. Do share your enjoyment often on pAsurams' nuances and shower your

aseervaadhams on our rambling. (and on us thereby)

 

Regards

 

Narayana Narayana

adiyEn