The fair-complexioned #Siva and the dark #kALi have taken black and white complexion respectively from each other, saying they will not accept any distinction between themselves, but will become one the other; the mother & father that are never two!
oppeṁ-we’ll not accept
nammoḷ-in us
bhēdaman-distinction
nām ippeṁ-we shall be
orvar āgi innorvar- one being the other
enal-thus
kappuṁ beḷpuṁ-black & white
kramadine-respectively
appan-dad
sitan-white Siva
ambe-mom
kāḷi-dark kALi
appar-they become
eraḍu alar-the non-dual
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
மன்னவன் தொண்டையர் கோன் வணங்கும் நீள் முடி மாலை வயிரமேகன்
தன் வலி தன் புகழ் சூழ்ந்த கச்சி அட்டபுயகரத்து ஆதி தன்னை
கன்னி நன் மா மதிள் மங்கை வேந்தன் காமரு சீர்க் கலிகன்றி குன்றா
இன்னிசையால் சொன்ன செஞ்சொல் மாலை ஏத்த வல்லார்க்கு இடம் வைகுந்தமே
2-8-10 #vairamEga
Ahem! These early references to asafoetida/ ಇಂಗು/ಹಿಂಗು iṅgu/ hiṅgu in kannaDa literature surely don’t matter. They must all be post-Mughal interpolations! But humour me anyway please
And for some comic relief from the permanent jester that is #GoogleTranslate🤪🤭
They are ever so clever- getting straight to the point eg! They sure know what Sringara rasa and ಮೋಹನತರಂಗಿಣಿ mōhanataraṅgiṇi are all about at the end of the day 😂
Name #Dravidian for lang family was coined by Robert Caldwell who discussed this at length in “A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages”1856
He gives his rationale-justification, also cleverly sowing seeds for today’s “Dravidian movement”
1/15
He sort of acknowledges Francis Whyte Ellis & Stevenson for recognising that today’s “#Dravidian” languages had much common between them, distinct from samskRta.
Ellis noted this in his intro to Alexander D Campbell’ book, “Grammar of the Teloogoo Language” (1816)
2/15
But the idea of putting tamiZ at the centre of this language, giving it a disproportionately large importance wasn’t just Caldwell’s. He mentions the use of “tamulic” and “tamulian” for this family by European writers prior to him.
Desire (kāma) to get a thing is sorrow. The pleasure when I get it & feel it my own is attachment (mōha). When attachment grows & I feel “Hey! No one’s equal to me”- that‘s conceit (mada). To want all gain only for myself is greed (lōbha)..
ಮರದ ರೆಂಬೆ ನೋಡಿ, “ಎಣ್ಣೆ ಕಾಣದೆ ನಿನ್ನ ಕೂದಲು ಒರಟಾಗಿದೆ ಪ್ರಿಯೇ! ಬಿಸಿಲನು ಸಹಿಸದೆ ತ್ವಚೆ, ಏನೂ ಆರೈಕೆ ಕಾಣದೆ ತೊಗಟೆಯಾಗಿದೆ! ನಿನ್ನಲಿ ನಾ ರತಿಸುಖ ಬಯಸಿ ನಿನ್ನ ತೋಳ ಬಳಸಿ ಎದೆಗಪ್ಪಿದರೆ ನಾಚಿ ಉದ್ದವಾದ ತೊಡೆಗಳನು ಸೇರಿಸಿಬಿಡುತೀಯಲ್ಲ! ಏಕೆ” ಎನ್ನುವನು ಆ ಭೂಜೋತ್ಸುಕನಾದ ರಾಮನು.
ಭೂಜ-ಮರ
ಭೂಜಾ-ಸೀತೆ
ಭೂಜೋತ್ಸುಕ-ಮರ/ಸೀತೆಯನು ಬಯಸುವವ
Seeing a branch, “Darling! your hair has gone rough from lack of oil! Not bearing the sun, lacking any care, your skin has turned to bark! When I hug your arms to make love, you shyly clasp together your long thighs & turn away! Why maithili?”, so says rama, lover of sItA/tree
I understand everyone has different perspectives. But what’s the need to deny one part of our identity to validate another? And this seems to increasingly apparent only in recent times.
That kannaDa has been a vital part of tuLu, koDava and konkaNi regions is a historic fact.
One can not argue against history just because one disagrees with it or because one is dissatisfied with the present and/or that one wants to change the future.