365bet娱乐

啶膏�權�嵿�椸�嵿ぐ啶灌�� 啶︵ぐ啷嵿ざ啶�啶むた鈥斷ぐ啶膏ぞ 啶�啶距さ啶� 啶囙い啷嵿く啶︵た啶ㄠぞ 啷� 啶氞ざ啶�啷嵿�� 啶囙い啶苦ざ啶�啷嵿う啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啷� 啷� 啶呧き啶苦え啶�啶む�嵿ぐ啶�啶� 啶椸��啶むぞ啶む�嬥う啷嵿く啷� 啶氞�囙い啶� 啶�啶炧�嵿�氞ぞ啶權�嵿�椸�� 啶ㄠぞ啶熰�嵿く啶�啷� 啷� 啶ㄠ�熰じ啷嵿�� 啶灌た 啶班じ啶�啶距さ啶�啷嬥�椸�� 啶�啶班ぃ啶距う啷� 啶むい啷嵿い啷嵿さ啶距さ啷囙ざ啷� 啶侧く啶距う啶苦き啶權�嵿�椸ざ啷嵿�� 啶膏�嵿く啶距い啷� 啷� 啶︵�冟し啷嵿�熰じ啷嵿い啷� 啶むい啷嵿お啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶�啷� 啶ㄠ�熰�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶� 啷� 啶呧え啷囙え 啶む�� 啶多�嵿げ啷嬥�曕�囙�� 啶曕�嬥す啶侧ぎ啶む�囙え啷堗�曕ぞ啶︵ざ啶距�權�嵿�椸い啷嵿さ啶�啷佮�氞�嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啶� 啶む�� 啶�啶班い啷� 啷� 啶むい啷嵿じ啶權�嵿�椸�冟す啷�啶むじ啷嵿く啶距お啶� 啶�啷佮え啶班い啷嵿ぐ啷嬥う啷嵿う啷囙ざ啶� 啷� 啶ㄠた啶班�嵿う啷囙ざ啷� 啶氞�堗い啶む�嵿�曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶掂�嵿く啶む�嵿く啶膏え啶距う啶苦い啷嵿く啷屶う啷嵿き啶熰ぞ啶� 啷� 啶ㄠ�堗い啶︵た啶む�� 啶�啶熰�嵿�熰げ啷嬥げ啷嵿げ啶熰�� 啷� 啶班じ啶�啶距さ啶距え啶距ぎ啶�啶� 啶掂ぞ啶膏え啶距さ啷囙ざ啶掂ざ啷囙え 啶ㄠ�熰�� 啶膏ぎ啷嵿き啶掂ぞ啶︵え啷佮が啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶苦が啶侧ぞ啶氞�嵿�� 啶侧く啶距う啷嵿く啶ㄠ�佮じ啶班ぃ啶距う啶ㄠ�嵿い啶班�嵿き啷傕い啶膏�嵿く啶距お啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啷嬥�溹え啶掂ざ啷囙�� 啶�啷佮え啶班�佮う啷嵿う啷囙ざ啶︵ぐ啷嵿ざ啶ㄠぞ啶む�� 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶膏�嵿�� 啶氞ぞ啶掂た啶掂�曕�嵿し啶苦い啶む�嵿さ啶距う啶苦い啶� 啷� 啶掂く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿さ啶む�嵿ぐ 啶むい啷嵿い啷嵿さ啶�啶椸�嵿ぐ啷� 啶掂た啶むえ啶苦し啷嵿く啶距ぎ 啶囙い啷嵿く啶膏�嵿い啶距�� 啶むぞ啶掂い啷� 啷�

蝉补峁単谤补丑补峁� 诲补谤艣补测补迟颈鈥�谤补蝉腻 产丑腻惫腻 ityadin膩 | ca艣abda iti艣abd膩rthe | abhinayatraya峁� g墨t膩todye ceti 辫补帽肠腻峁単补峁� 苍腻峁瓂补尘 | 苍补峁璦sya hi rasa产丑腻惫补yoge mara峁嚹乨au tattv膩ve艣o lay膩dibh补峁単补艣ca sy膩t | d峁涐梗峁璦stu tatpratyayo na峁璭 产丑谤补尘补岣� | anena tu 艣lokena kohalamatenaik膩da艣膩峁単atvamucyate | na tu bharate | tatsa峁単峁沨墨tasy膩pi punaratrodde艣a岣� | nirde艣e caitatkramavyatyasan膩dityaudbha峁�膩岣� | naitaditi bha峁�峁璦lolla峁璦岣� | rasa产丑腻惫腻苍腻尘补pi v膩san膩ve艣ava艣ena na峁璭 sambhav膩danubandhibal膩cca lay膩dyanusara峁嚹乨antarbh奴tasy膩pi prayojanava艣ena punar耻诲诲别艣补dar艣an膩t kramasya c膩vivak峁�itatv膩diti | vayantvatra tattvamagre vitani峁�y膩ma ityast膩峁� t膩vat |

鈥�(础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, Commentary on 6.10, GOS Vol. I, p.258) 

This extract is a commentary on the following verse in 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补:

啶班じ啶� 啶�啶距さ啶� 啶灌�嵿く啶�啶苦え啶�啶� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啷�啶掂�冟い啷嵿い啶苦お啷嵿ぐ啶掂�冟い啷嵿い啶�啶� 啷�
啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶苦じ啷嵿さ啶班ぞ啶膏�嵿い啶ムぞ啶む�嬥う啷嵿く啶� 啶椸ぞ啶ㄠ�� 啶班�權�嵿�椸ざ啷嵿�� 啶膏�傕�椸�嵿ぐ啶灌�� 啷� (啶ㄠ�嵿じ啷� 啷�.啷оウ)

谤补蝉腻 产丑腻惫腻 hyabhinay膩 诲丑补谤尘墨惫峁泃迟颈prav峁泃taya岣� |
siddhisvar膩stath腻迟辞诲测补峁� 驳腻苍补峁� 谤补峁単补艣ca sa峁僩raha岣� || (NS 6.10)

Abhinava explains that the term 蝉补峁単谤补丑补 (which can also be called 耻诲诲别艣补) includes the names of the subjects which are to be discussed in the work. According to the verse in 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 mentioned above, these are as follows:

1. rasa;
2. 产丑腻惫补;
3. abhinaya;
4. 诲丑补谤尘墨;
5. 惫峁泃迟颈;
6. pra惫峁泃迟颈;
7. siddhi;
8. svara;
9. 腻迟辞诲测补;
10. 驳腻苍补;
11. 谤补峁単补;

In this context, Abhinava mentions the contradicting views of the 补耻诲产丑补峁璦蝉 (the followers of 鲍诲产丑补峁璦) and of 叠丑补峁�峁�补 Lolla峁璦. The 补耻诲产丑补峁璦蝉 are of the opinion that only the three abhinayas (腻峁単颈办补, 惫腻肠颈办补 and 蝉腻迟迟惫颈办补) along with 驳墨迟补 and 腻迟辞诲测补 can be called the 补峁単补蝉 of 苍腻峁瓂补. They reason that if rasa, 产丑腻惫补 and such like are included as 补峁単补蝉, it would imply that the actor personally experiences the different states such as 尘补谤补峁嘺. And further, such a situation would affect the tempo of the play. In actuality, our perception of the 苍补峁璦 and his emotional states is an illusion (bhrama). The 补耻诲产丑补峁璦蝉 say that this representation of 苍腻峁瓂补 as having eleven 补峁単补蝉 is the view of the school of Kohala but not of Bharata. Further they point out that the subjects mentioned herein are not enumerated in the future chapters of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 in this very same order. 

This view has been opposed by 叠丑补峁�峁�补 Lolla峁璦, who reasons that a 苍补峁璦 can very well relish the rasas and 产丑腻惫补s due to practice, experience and other circumstantial forces, without impeding the flow and tempo of the play. Regarding the order of subjects, Lolla峁璦 feels that one subject can be enumerated at different places in the course of a grantha and also that the order mentioned in the 耻诲诲别艣补 and the order of subjects found in the grantha need not necessarily match. Abhinavagupta chooses to remain silent on this issue at this juncture but promises to elaborate on it at a later point. P. V. Kane however interprets this as a clear statement of Abhinavagupta鈥檚 disagreement with both the views of the 补耻诲产丑补峁璦蝉 and Lolla峁璦.

On examination of the list of subjects, we find included terms such as rasa, 产丑腻惫补 etc. Rasa is the aim of 苍腻峁瓂补 and not an 补峁単补. It is interesting to note that while the term 驳腻苍补, which would represent the whole gamut of music finds place in this list, the term svara has also been additionally used. Svara would normally be included as a part of 驳腻苍补 which might raise a question as to why it has been mentioned separately in this list. Perhaps in this context, the term svara connotes 办腻办耻 惫颈诲丑腻苍补 and not the technical musical term meaning a note. When 苍腻峁瓂补 is looked at as a complete art form, 驳墨迟补, 惫腻诲测补 and abhinaya appear to be the logical elements or 补峁単补蝉 therein. Inclusion of the terms 谤补峁単补, 惫峁泃迟颈 etc. as 补峁単补蝉 appears to be unaesthetic. On this subject, V. Raghavan says that Kohala has only restated as eleven, the five 补峁単补蝉 of Bharata^[1]. Manmohan Ghosh quotes 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 8.12 and refers to 苍腻峁瓂补 as having six 补峁単补蝉. P. V. Kane refutes this theory on the ground that the reference in question i.e. 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 8.12 refers to 腻峁単颈办腻产丑颈苍补测补 and not to 苍腻峁瓂补 in general^[2]. 

This verse found in 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 is of vital importance in understanding the place and eminence enjoyed by Kohala. From this, it can be inferred that Kohala, even though was a contemporary of Bharata had independent views on the practice of 苍腻峁瓂补. Furthermore his views have enjoyed much popularity, so much so that they have found their way into the 尘奴濒补 text of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 itself, even before the time of Abhinavagupta (10th century C.E.).

V. Raghavan has mentioned the same thought when he says鈥�

鈥業t appears also that the present text of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 of Bharata has incorporated into itself arts of earlier works and later works, chiefly Kohala鈥檚 among the latter. Evidences are not wanting to prove that part of Kohala鈥檚 text had entered and amplified the original of Bharata鈥�^[3]

The text of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 contains many 腻苍耻惫补峁兣泍补 艣濒辞办补蝉 or verses of other eminent authors as part of its text and in the case of this particular verse i.e. 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 6.10, we come to know of its original author (i.e. Kohala) only through the commentary of Abhinavagupta. 

The presence of several 腻苍耻惫补峁兣泍补 艣濒辞办补蝉 is proof enough to show that the text of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 contains interpolations of several authors. Even in the case of Kohala there is a considerable amount of textual material titled 鈥�pa帽camodhy膩ya pari艣i峁ａ弓am鈥� following the fifth chapter namely p奴rva谤补峁単补 惫颈诲丑腻苍补m. 

There is a colophon which clearly brings out the name of Kohala as the author鈥�

啶囙い啶� 啶�啶距ぐ啶む��啶�啷� 啶ㄠぞ啶熰�嵿く啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷� 啶曕�屶す啶侧��啶�啶� 啶�啷傕ぐ啷嵿さ啶班�權�嵿�椸さ啶苦ぇ啶距え啶� 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶�啶炧�嵿�氞ぎ啷嬥そ啶о�嵿く啶距く鈥斷お啶班た啶多た啶粪�嵿�熰ぎ啷� 啷�

iti bh膩rat墨ye 苍腻峁瓂补艣膩stre kauhal墨ya峁� p奴rva谤补峁単补惫颈诲丑腻苍补峁� 苍腻尘补 辫补帽肠补尘辞'诲丑测腻测补鈥�pari艣i峁ａ弓am | ^[4]

However, there is some doubt regarding this section of text, due to which different editors of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 have chosen to either mention or omit the name of Kohala. As in this case, it is possible that there are other portions in the current text of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 which have been written by Kohala and not Bharata. But extent of the interpolations and the exact verses / passages in question can be ascertained only when the original work of Kohala comes to light.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Abhinavagupta and his Works: 1980: Chap.10: p.127

[2]:

History of Sanskrit Poetics: 1971: p.25

[3]:

Bhoja鈥檚 艢峁涐箙驳腻谤补辫谤补办腻艣补: 1963: p. 519

[4]:

狈补峁ａ弓测补艣补蝉蝉迟谤补 of Bharatamuni: 2006: Vol I: p. 217