Sangeetha-Grantha

Raga Clarifications — Questions for Expert Review

We are compiling a carefully verified reference of the ragas used in the compositions of the Trinity — Tyagaraja, Muthuswami Dikshitar and Syama Sastri.

While cross-checking our list against published sources, a small number of entries could not be settled with confidence. In each case below, either two names appear for what may be the same raga, or an arohanam/avarohanam we hold does not look right. Rather than guess, we would be very grateful for your guidance.

Where relevant we have noted the kritis concerned, since the composition itself is often the clearest evidence.

Notation used throughout: S R1 R2 R3 G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 P D1 D2 D3 N1 N2 N3 S

Part A — The three we most need settled

A1. Purvi — which form does Dikshitar’s Srī Guru Guhasya use?

We hold two different ragas both called Purvi:

  Arohanam Avarohanam
Purvi (as a janya of Mayamalavagowla, 15) S R1 G3 M1 D1 N3 S S N3 D1 P M1 G3 R1 S
Purvi (with prati madhyamam) S R1 G3 M2 P D1 N3 S S N3 D1 P M2 G3 R1 S

The second is the North Indian Purvi. The kriti in question is Dikshitar’s Srī Guru Guhasya.

Questions

  1. Which of these two does Srī Guru Guhasya use?
  2. Is the prati-madhyamam form sung in Carnatic concerts as a raga in its own right, or should we treat it as the same raga rendered differently?
  3. If they are two distinct ragas, is there a better name for each so they are not confused?

Your answer: Purvi is a rare bhashanga janya raga of Mayamalavagowla (15) — i.e. the first form in our table (S R1 G3 M1 D1 N3 S / S N3 D1 P M1 G3 R1 S), the shuddha madhyamam form. This is the raga of Dikshitar’s Srī Guru Guhasya. (Bhashanga = it admits an anya swaram outside the parent scale.) The prati-madhyamam “North Indian Purvi” is not the raga of this kriti.


A2. Gamakapriya and Gamanapriya — one raga or two?

We hold both names, each shown as a janya of Pantuvarali (51), and — which seems unlikely to be right — with exactly the same scale:

Name Arohanam Avarohanam
Gamakapriya S R1 G3 M2 P N3 D1 S S D1 P M2 G3 R1 S
Gamanapriya S R1 G3 M2 P N3 D1 S S D1 P M2 G3 R1 S

We also hold Gayakapriya (melakarta 13) separately, which we believe is unrelated to both.

Questions

  1. Are Gamakapriya and Gamanapriya one raga under two names, or two distinct ragas?
  2. If two, what is the correct arohanam and avarohanam of each?
  3. Which name is the one in common use today?

Your answer: Gamakapriya and Gamanapriya do not exist as two distinct standard scales. The names most likely stem from a mishearing / spelling variation of Gamakakriya and Gamanashrama, which are the same melodic entity under two nomenclature traditions:

The names may therefore need to be updated to Gamanashrama / Gamakakriya. Reference kriti: Dikshitar’s Meenakshi Me Mudam (in Gamakakriya = Gamanashrama, mela 53). Source: Gamanashrama, Wikipedia.

⚠️ Reconciliation note (needs a follow-up, do not apply blindly): Our question asked about Gamakapriya / Gamanapriya as janyas of Pantuvarali (51), with a prati-madhyamam scale (S R1 G3 M2 P N3 D1 S). The expert’s answer instead resolves the names to Gamanashrama / Gamakakriya = melakarta 53 (S R1 G3 M2 P D2 N3 S). These are not the same scale — the 53rd mela has D2 N3, whereas our held entries have N3 D1 (vakra) as a Pantuvarali janya. So either (a) our two entries were misnamed corruptions of the mela-53 name and should be replaced by a single Gamanashrama entry, or (b) there is a genuine Pantuvarali janya that the answer has conflated with the mela. Confirm which of our kritis (if any) actually sit on these entries before merging — the presence/absence of a real Pantuvarali janya decides it.

✅ RESOLVED via DB audit (2026-08-29): The DB decides it in favour of the expert. We hold three relevant entries:

So Gamakapriyā / Gamanapriyā are orphan misnamed corruptions of the mela-53 name (option (a)); the correctly-named, kriti-bearing Gamakakriyā already exists under Gamanāśrama (53). Meenakshi Me Mudam is confirmed in Gamaka Kriya by the Guru Guha (Dikshitar) source: guru-guha.blogspot.com. Action: retire/merge the two empty Pantuvarali-51 entries (Gamakapriyā, Gamanapriyā) — no kriti re-tagging needed since neither has any — keeping Gamakakriyā (janya of Gamanāśrama, 53) as canonical. Consider adding Gamanashrama / Gamanapriya / Gamakapriya as aliases on it.


A3. Dharmavati and Dhamavati — the same raga?

We hold Dharmavati as melakarta 59, and Dhamavati separately — but with an identical scale:

Name Arohanam Avarohanam
Dharmavati (mela 59) S R2 G2 M2 P D2 N3 S S N3 D2 P M2 G2 R2 S
Dhamavati S R2 G2 M2 P D2 N3 S S N3 D2 P M2 G2 R2 S

Two Dikshitar kritis are attributed to Dhamavati: Parandhāmavatī and Rāma Candrasya Dāsōhaṃ.

Questions

  1. Is Dhamavati simply another name for melakarta 59 Dharmavati, or a distinct raga?
  2. If distinct, how does it differ in scale or in the way it is handled?
  3. Which name should we use for these two kritis?

Your answer: Yes — Dhamavati (often spelled Dhaamavati) is simply another name for melakarta 59 Dharmavati, not a distinct raga. The identical scale in our table is correct. The name variance is purely the two nomenclature traditions:

Both Parandhāmavatī and Rāma Candrasya Dāsōhaṃ are in this one raga. Recommendation: store as Dharmavati (mela 59) with Dhamavati / Dhaamavati as an alias. Sources: Dharmavati, Wikipedia, darbar.org.


Part B — Two names, possibly one raga

B1. Andhali / Andali

We hold this raga as a janya of Harikambhoji (28):

Two kritis are involved — Tyagaraja’s Abhimānamu Lēdēmi and Dikshitar’s Bṛhannāyaki Varadāyaki.

This raga does not appear in the published lists we have been able to consult, so we have no authority for the spelling at all.

Questions

  1. Are Andhali and Andali the same raga? Which spelling is correct?
  2. Is the scale above right, and is Harikambhoji the correct parent?
  3. Are both kritis above in this raga?

Your answer: Andhali and Andali are the same rare raga, a janya of Harikambhoji (28). The correct spelling is Andhali (aspirated ‘dh’) — the historically documented form in the treatises (Sangraha Chudamani; Subbarama Dikshitar’s Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini). “Andali” is a variant. Source: rasika.life.

✅ DB audit (2026-08-29): We hold both — Andhali (full: parent Harikāmbhōji 28, scale S R2 M1 P N2 S / S N2 P M1 R2 G3 M1 R2 S) and an empty duplicate Andali (no scale, no parent, name-only). Action: keep Andhali as canonical, fold Andali in as an alias / delete the empty duplicate. Still need to confirm the two kritis (Abhimānamu Lēdēmi, Bṛhannāyaki Varadāyaki) are tagged to Andhali — see note below.


B2. Kalavathi / Kalavati

Here we hold two entries that look genuinely different, and we would like to confirm that they really are two ragas rather than one entered twice:

Name Parent Arohanam Avarohanam
Kalavathi Yagapriya (31) S R3 G3 M1 P D1 N1 S S N1 D1 P M1 G3 R3 S
Kalavati Chakravakam (16) S R1 M1 P D2 S S D2 P M1 G3 S R1 S

Three kritis sit on the second: Tyagaraja’s Ennaḍu Jūtunō and Oka Pāri Jūḍaga, and Dikshitar’s Kalāvati Kamalāsana.

Questions

  1. Are these two distinct ragas?
  2. Is the second scale correct? A five-note ascent with G3 appearing only in descent looked unusual to us.
  3. Are the three kritis all in the same one of the two?

Your answer: Yes — two genuinely distinct ragas that share the name (homonyms across traditions):

Second scale confirmed correct: ārohaṇam S R1 M1 P D2 S, avarohaṇam S D2 P M1 G3 S R1 S (or S D2 P M1 G3 R1 S). The 5-up / 6-down asymmetry with G3 only in descent is a legitimate audava–shadava / vakra structure (cf. Garudadhvani, Malahari, Bahudari) — not an error.

The three kritis split across the two: | Kriti | Composer | Raga | |:–|:–|:–| | Kalāvatī Kamalāsana | Dikshitar | Kalāvatī (Mēḷa 31) — Yāgapriyā equivalent | | Ennaḍu Jūtunō | Tyagaraja | Kalāvatī (Mēḷa 16) — janya of Cakravākam | | Oka Pāri Jūḍaga | Tyagaraja | Kalāvatī (Mēḷa 16) — janya of Cakravākam |

⚠️ DB audit (2026-08-29) — MIS-TAG found: We correctly hold both entries with matching scales — Kalāvathi (parent Yāgapriyā 31, S R3 G3 M1 P D1 N1 S / …) and Kalāvati (parent Chakravākam 16, S R1 M1 P D2 S / S D2 P M1 G3 S R1 S). But all three kritis are currently tagged to Kalāvati (mela 16), including Dikshitar’s kalAvati kamalAsana. Per the expert, kalAvati kamalAsana should move to Kalāvathi (mela 31); the two Tyagaraja kritis stay on mela 16. Action: re-tag kalAvati kamalAsana from Kalāvati(16) → Kalāvathi(31). (Dikshitar’s Kalavati attribution has some scholarly debate; the expert’s SSP-based mela-31 placement is the authority we should follow — worth a one-line confirmation before applying.)


B3. Sreemati / Srimati (lower priority — no kritis attached)

Name Parent Arohanam Avarohanam
Sreemati Ratnangi (2) S R1 G1 P D1 S S N2 D1 P G1 R1 S
Srimati Hanumatodi (8) S G2 R1 G2 M1 P D1 P D2 N2 S S N2 D1 P M1 P M1 G2 R1 S

Question: are these two different ragas, or one raga recorded twice with differing scales?

Your answer: Two completely different ragas that share phonetic variants of the same name — distinct janyas of different parent melas:

They cannot be the same: different gandharam (G1 vs G2), different parent, and linear vs. vakra flow.

⚠️ DB audit (2026-08-29): We hold only the Mela-8 Srimati (parent Hanumatodi, vakra scale with D2 anya swara — matches, 0 kritis). We do not hold the Mela-2 Sreemati (Ratnangi) at all. Action: our single entry is correct as-is; optionally add a Sreemati (Ratnangi 2, S R1 G1 P D1 S / S N2 D1 P G1 R1 S) entry for completeness. Low priority — neither has kritis attached.


Part C — Scales we would like confirmed

C1. Brindavana Saranga

The scale we hold looks wrong to us — it has no nishadam at all:

Questions

  1. What are the correct arohanam and avarohanam?
  2. We understand the raga’s character rests on using N3 in ascent and N2 in descent — is that right, and is gandharam omitted?

Your answer: Correct — our held scale is wrong (it omits nishadam N and wrongly includes dhaivatham D). The standard Carnatic scales are:

So the raga does use N3 in ascent and N2 in descent (a bhashanga trait), and gandharam (G2) appears only in the descent — not omitted entirely, but ascent-varjya. Parent is Kharaharapriya (22). Sources: ragasurabhi, anuradhamahesh.

✅ DB audit (2026-08-29): We already hold a correct entry — Brindāvana Sāranga{Hindustani} (parent Kharaharapriyā 22, S R2 M1 P N3 S / S N2 P M1 R2 G2 R2 S, anya swara N3) — plus the correct Brindāvani{Hindustani} variant. The wrong entry is the bare Brindāvana Sāranga (S R2 G2 M1 P D2 S / S D2 P M1 G2 S, no parent). Actions: (a) fix/delete the bad bare entry, merging onto the correct scale; (b) review the {Hindustani} suffix — this is the Carnatic Brindavana Saranga, so the label likely wants to drop that tag (the Hindustani counterpart is Brindavani Sarang).


C2. Veeravasantham

We have it as a janya of Varunapriya (24). The ascent ending at P, together with D3 in the descent, seemed worth checking. The kritis are Tyagaraja’s Ēmani Pogaḍudurā and Dikshitar’s Ēkāmra Nāthāya.

Questions

  1. Is this scale correct?
  2. Is Varunapriya the right parent?
  3. We also see the name written as Vīra Vasanta and Vīra Vasantam — is one form preferred?

Your answer: Our avarohanam is wrong. The scale we hold (S R2 G2 M1 P S / S N3 D3 P M1 G2 R2 S) is actually the linear krama of the parent mela Varunapriya (24) — not Veeravasantham, which is a crooked (vakra) raga. Correct scales:

Parent Varunapriya (24) is correct — as a janya under Govindacharya; under the Venkatamakhin asampurna scheme the 24th mela is named Vīra Vasanta. Name: both forms are valid — Vīra Vasanta / Viravasanta is the Sanskrit/scholarly form (SSP, Dikshitar’s style); Veeravasantham / Vīravasantam is the Telugu/Tamil phonetic form used for Tyagaraja’s kritis in concert usage. Sources: rasika.life, Reddit r/Carnatic.

⚠️ DB audit (2026-08-29): Our Veeravasantham (Varunapriya 24) holds the wrong Govindacharya avarohanam S N3 D3 P M1 G2 R2 S — remove D3 → S N3 P M1 G2 R2 S. We also hold two empty name-only duplicates vIra vasanta and vIra vasantaM (no scale/parent). Actions: (a) fix the avarohanam (drop D3); (b) fold the two empty duplicates in as aliases / delete. Decide whether to record the Dikshitar (Venkatamakhin) scale as a separate variant, since Ēkāmra Nāthāya is a Dikshitar kriti.


C3. Narirītigowla

We hold this as a janya of Natabhairavi (20):

The kritis are Dikshitar’s Srī Nīlōtpala Nāyikē and Nīlōtpalāmbāṃ Bhajarē.

Questions

  1. Is the name correctly Narirītigowla? We have also seen it written Nārērētigowla.
  2. Is the scale above right, and is Natabhairavi the correct parent? We ask because the closely related Reethigowla is usually placed under Kharaharapriya (22).

Your answer: Correct spelling is Nārīrītigowla (also Nārīrītigaula). The Nārī prefix encodes the katapayadi number: Na=0, Ra=2 → read reversed = 20, its melakarta position. Nārērētigowla is a phonetic corruption. Our scale and parent are correct — Natabhairavi (20), using Shuddha Dhaivatam (D1).

The Reethigowla relationship: Nārīrītigowla is the archaic older form of Reethigowla. Over time the dhaivatam shifted D1 → D2 in mainstream practice, and modern Reethigowla is placed under Kharaharapriya (22) with D2. Dikshitar preserved the original D1 form — in Srī Nīlōtpala Nāyikē he embeds both the raga and parent names in the anupallavi (“rīti gauravē”, “nata bhairavē”). Sources: Reetigowla, Wikipedia, guru-guha.blogspot.

⚠️ DB audit (2026-08-29): Our full entry uses the corrupt spelling Nārērētigowla (scale + Natabhairavi 20 parent are correct). There is also an empty duplicate nArI rItigauLa (no scale/parent) — closer to the right spelling. Action: rename the full entry to Nārīrītigowla, keep Nārērētigowla / nArI rItigauLa as aliases, and fold the empty duplicate in. Confirm both Dikshitar kritis (Srī Nīlōtpala Nāyikē, Nīlōtpalāmbāṃ Bhajarē) stay tagged to it.


C4. Dwijavanthi / Jujavanthi

Questions

  1. Is this scale correct, and is Harikambhoji (28) the right parent?
  2. We understand the raga takes G2 as an anya swaram alongside G3 — is that right?
  3. Which name is preferred in Carnatic usage — Dwijavanthi or Jujavanthi?

Your answer: Confirmed on all three points. Dwijavanthi is a valid vakra janya of Harikambhoji (28); our zig-zag scale is correct (it reflects the raga’s Hindustani roots as Jaijaivanti). G2 (sadharana gandharam) is correctly used as an anya swaram alongside the regular G3 (antara), appearing in the descending phrase to create the characteristic Jaijaivanti nuance. Preferred name: Dwijavanthi / Dwijavanti — the standard modern Carnatic spelling; Jujavanthi / Dwijayavanthi are older-text variants (Sangita Makaranda). Sources: sujamusic, ragasurabhi.

⚠️ DB audit (2026-08-29): We hold the correct combined entry Dwijāvanthi /Jujāvanthi (Harikāmbhōji 28, matching scale, anya swaras G2/N3 flagged) — but ALSO an empty-parent duplicate Jujāvanti (no parent) and a separate Hindustani entry Jaijaiwanti{Hindustani}. Jujahuli is a different Harikambhoji janya — leave it alone. Action: set canonical name to Dwijavanthi, fold Jujāvanti / Jujavanthi in as aliases (drop the slashed name), keep Jaijaiwanti{Hindustani} as the distinct Hindustani cross-reference.


A general question, if you have the patience for it

Several of the confusions above come from the same root: the same raga written in different ways by different sources, and occasionally two genuinely different ragas whose names look almost identical (Kanada and Kannada, for instance, or Abheri and Bhairavi).

Is there a printed reference you would recommend as the most reliable authority for raga names, their parent melakartas, and their arohanam/avarohanam — one we could adopt as our standard and cite consistently? We currently rely on general published lists, which is how several of these errors crept in.

Your answer:


Thank you very much for your time. Even partial answers, or a note that a particular question has no settled answer, would help us a great deal — knowing that something is genuinely disputed is as useful to us as knowing the answer.