365bet娱乐

啶�啷佮�曕�嵿い啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啶班�� 啶む�嵿さ啶苦う啶� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啷嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啶曕た啶�啶ㄠ�囙え 啶むえ啷嵿い啷嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶班ざ啷�啶侧�囙�� 啷� 啶曕ざ啷嵿く啶�啶距う啶苦き啶苦じ啷嵿い啶距さ啶距え啷� 啶�啷� (啶掂う啷嵿く啷�) 啶掂た啶ㄠた啶�啷嬥�� 啶夃�曕�嵿い啶� 啶膏�嬥そ啶�啷嵿く啶む�嵿�� 啷� 啶呧く啶�啶�啶� 啶�啷佮え啶苦さ啶苦え啶苦く啷佮�曕�嵿い啷嬥そ啶膏�嵿い啷� 啷� 啶�啶班ぎ啶むぎ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶�啶�啶苦ぎ啶むぎ啶苦い啶� 啶膏�嵿ぅ啶苦い啷嵿�� 啶灌た 啶ㄠ�嵿く啶距く啶距い啷� 啷� 啶掂�堗�曕げ啷嵿お啶苦�曕い啷嵿さ啷� 啶曕�� 啶掂た啶班�嬥ぇ啶�? 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啷佮い 啶曕�嬥す啶侧じ啷嵿い啶︵�嵿さ啶︵た啶粪�嵿く啶む��啶むた (啶�. 啶ㄠぞ. 啷┼キ.啷оギ) 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶�啶ㄠ�佮�溹�嵿�炧ぞ啶むぎ啷囙�� 啶�啷佮え啶苦え啶� 啷� 啶忇い啶む�嵿お啷嵿ぐ啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶�啷� 啶むい啷嵿ぐ 啶むい啷嵿ぐ啷嬥�曕�嵿い啶� 啶班�曕�嵿い啷嵿く啶むた啶多く啶�啷嬥�椸ぞ啶氞�嵿�� 啷� 啶侧�嬥�曕�� 啶曕�嬥す啶侧�曕ざ啷嵿く啶�啶距う啶苦ぎ啶むぎ啷囙�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶苦ぎ啷佮お啶椸い啶�啶苦い啷嵿く啶侧ぎ啷� 啶�啶灌�佮え啶� 啷�

yuktyantara峁� tvida峁� lak峁�yate | kimanena tantr膩ntara艣墨lena | ka艣yap膩dibhist膩v膩n yo (vadyo) viniyoga 耻办迟补岣� so'pyatra | ayamapi muniviniyukto'stu | paramatamaprati峁�iddhamabhimatamiti sthitya hi ny膩y膩t | vaikalpikatve ko 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�? pratyuta 办辞丑补濒补蝉迟补诲惫补诲颈峁�y补迟墨迟颈 (bha. 苍腻. 37.18) sarvamanuj帽膩tameva muni苍腻 | etatprasiddhaye tatra tatrokta峁� raktyati艣ayayog膩cca | loke kohalaka艣yap膩dimatameva prasiddhimupagatamityalam bahu苍腻 | 

鈥�(础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, Commentary on 29.8, GOS Vol. IV, p.70)

The above extract is a commentary on the following verse of Bharata:

啶忇�曕�堗さ 啶粪ぁ啷嵿�溹ぎ啶о�嵿く啶� 啶溹�嵿�炧�囙く啶� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶班じ啶膏�傕ざ啷嵿ぐ啶�啶� 啶溹ぞ啶むた啶� 啷�
啶むじ啷嵿く啶距じ啷嵿い啷嵿さ啶傕ざ啶距�� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷� 啶掂た啶灌た啶むぞ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啷嬥�椸さ啶苦ぇ啷� 啷� 啷ㄠク.啷� 啷�

ekaiva 峁�a岣峧补尘补诲丑测腻 j帽ey膩 sarvarasasa峁兣況ay膩 箩腻迟颈岣� |
tasy膩stva峁兣浤佱弗 sarve svar膩stu vihit膩岣� prayogavidhau || 29.8 ||^[1]

(Trans: Only the 峁�a岣峧补尘补诲丑测腻 is the 闯腻迟颈 which can accommodate all the Sentiments all the notes [of the 骋谤腻尘补 ] maybe it鈥檚 补峁兣沘 and these have been dealt with in the rules of [dramatic] production)^[2]. 

Abhinava starts a discussion with regard to the employment of particular 箩腻迟颈蝉 / 驳谤腻尘补 谤腻驳补蝉 / 产丑腻峁Ｄ乻 in order to reinforce a particular rasa. He explains Bharata鈥檚 statement that 峁�a岣峧补尘补诲丑测补尘腻 is the only 箩腻迟颈 that can be used in all the rasas as all its svaras can function as 补峁兣沘. 峁�墨k膩k膩ra raises an objection saying that this would go against the rules prescribed by 惭补迟补峁単补 and 碍腻艣测补辫补. He then mentions the views of 鈥榦thers鈥� (anye) who have said that the same svara will assume different characteristics depending on whether it is functioning as an 补峁兣沘 svara or not. Finally, as his 蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补, he explains the view held by his master who says that in practice, there will not be much of a distinction and that there will not be much of an addition to the varieties of melody. He then brings out Bharata鈥檚 philosophy that all the forms assumed by a 箩腻迟颈 brought about by the use of its various 补峁兣沘 svaras will together make up the entire framework of melody in 苍腻峁瓂a. According to him, the 驳谤腻尘补 谤腻驳补蝉, 产丑腻峁Ｄ乻 etc. fall well within the range of 箩腻迟颈 and it is not necessary that a particular 箩腻迟颈 should be sung with particular 补峁兣沘 in order to bring out a particular rasa. The 驳谤腻尘补 谤腻驳补蝉 and 产丑腻峁Ｄ乻 belonging to that 箩腻迟颈 can also be used to this end. 

Abhinava continues the discussion mentioning contradictory views of other authors on this subject. At the end he concludes saying that there is no harm in accepting the prescriptions given in another tradition because what other authorities like 碍腻艣测补辫补 have said would also fall within the framework of 苍腻峁瓂a and consequently that of Bharata鈥檚. 

He also mentions the 苍测腻测补鈥�

啶�啶班ぎ啶むぎ啷�-啶呧お啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶�啷�-啶呧き啶苦ぎ啶むぎ啷�

辫补谤补尘补迟补尘-补辫谤补迟颈峁�i诲诲丑补尘-补产丑颈尘补迟补尘

(A contradictory view which has not been refuted is deemed accepted). 

He mentions Bharata鈥檚 own example at this juncture saying that he (Bharata) has himself accepted the views of Kohala when he says鈥�

啶多�囙し啶�啷佮い啷嵿い啶班い啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷囙�� 啶曕�嬥す啶侧じ啷嵿い啷� 啶曕ぐ啶苦し啷嵿く啶むた.

艣e峁�amuttaratantre峁嘺 kohalastu kari峁�yati. ^[3]

He adds that the views of 碍腻艣测补辫补 and others (Kohala) have been cited time and again in order for his own views to gain wider acceptance since the views of these authorities were extremely popular. 

At the end of this discussion Abhinava makes a general observation that it is not wrong to admit the methods/ techniques/ rules adopted by other schools as long as it falls within the gamut of 苍腻峁瓂a. It is here that he brings in Kohala. An interesting point here is that while explaining the acceptance of 鈥�paramatam鈥�, Abhinava mentions Bharata鈥檚 statement that Kohala would complete whatever he (Bharata) has left out. This statement would therefore signify that according to Abhinava, Kohala belonged to a different school of thought (paramata) from Bharata鈥檚 tradition. Further, the inclusion of the names of Kohala and 碍腻艣测补辫补 by Abhinava to gain acceptance for his own views is only evidence of the kind of popularity and esteem enjoyed by Kohala and his doctrines in Abhinava鈥檚 time. Abhinava unfortunately does not mention Kohala鈥檚 stand on 箩腻迟颈 or 谤腻驳补 and his doctrines for the prescription of a 谤腻驳补 for a rasa. He calls on Kohala only to use his authority to consent to the acceptance of views of authors belonging to other schools also.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 of Bharatamuni: 2006: GOS Vol IV: p.69

[2]:

狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 of Bharatamuni: 2006: Vol.III p.1011

[3]:

狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉补迟谤补 of Bharatamuni: 2006: V. 37.18: GOS. Vol. IV: p.517