365bet娱乐

叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 (8th century C.E.) is one of the earliest 濒补办峁�a峁嘺驳谤补苍迟丑补蝉 that gives us a glimpse of the Kohala mentioned by Bharata. 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 was written many centuries after the period of Bharata, and consequently that of Kohala. Nevertheless, it is still the only work in the ancient period that contains quotations from Kohala. The subjects that are spoken of include 艣谤耻迟颈, svara and 尘奴谤肠肠丑补苍腻. Regarding 艣谤耻迟墨, 惭补迟补峁単补 quotes a 艣濒辞办补 wherein Kohala comments on the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s. He mentions three schools of thought鈥攐ne that there are twenty two 艣谤耻迟颈s, another that there are sixty six and yet another that they are infinite (ref.para 2.1.2.1). 惭补迟补峁単补 quotes Kohala here to support his own statement on this subject.

In the Svara prakara峁嘺m, there are three quotations of Kohala鈥檚 艣濒辞办补s. Kohala cites the generation of sound by 惫腻测耻 striking the 苍腻岣嵞玸 and then proceeds to give a short and pithy definition of the term svara鈥�

啶о�嵿さ啶ㄠ�� 啶班�曕�嵿い啶� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班�� 啶膏�嵿ぎ啷冟い啶�

诲丑惫补苍墨 谤补办迟补岣� 蝉惫补谤补岣� 蝉尘峁泃补岣�

(Delightful sound is called svara) (ref.para 2.1.3.1). 

惭补迟补峁単补 then raises questions as to the nature of svara. He cites another 艣濒辞办补 of Kohala as its reply. Kohala mentions the direct connection of svara with 箩腻迟颈, 谤腻驳补蝉 and 产丑腻峁Ｄ乻 and says that there could be infinite permutations and combinations with pada-s, 补濒补峁卥腻谤补蝉 and rasas (ref.para 2.1.3.3).

惭补迟补峁単补 also quotes 艣濒辞办补s that gives the animals associated with each of the seven svaras (ref.para 2.1.3.4). This citation appears to be part of a conversation between 艢颈惫补 and 笔腻谤惫补迟墨. 惭补迟补峁単补 mentions that 鈥�惭补丑别艣惫补谤补鈥� speaks these words, and there is an address to 鈥�顿别惫墨鈥� in the verse. It was quite a common practice for works to be written in the form of a conversation between two mythological personalities^[1]. Usually one asks questions related to the subject at hand and the other answers them. In accordance with this convention, it is possible that Kohala had also fashioned his work in the form of a conversation between 艢颈惫补 and 笔腻谤惫补迟墨. It is interesting to note that in the case of Kohala himself, the work 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 attributed to him is in the form of a conversation between 艢腻谤诲奴濒补 and Kohala and unpublished works titled Kohalamatam and Kohalarahasyam have a section called Kohala-惭补迟补峁単补-蝉补峁僾腻诲补 which is a conversation between Kohala and 惭补迟补峁単补. 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 is one of the earliest sources of material regarding Kohala and was perhaps one of the works that dated closest to him. So, the information available in this work carries a lot of weight in arriving at any theories relating to Kohala. This would imply that Kohala鈥檚 work was one that was perhaps written as a conversation between 艢颈惫补 and 笔腻谤惫补迟墨. The other works could be representative of later authors who were also (incidentally) called Kohala or those which were passed off under the famous name of Kohala in order to attract some attention to themselves. 

While discussing the 诲惫腻诲补艣补蝉惫补谤补-尘奴肠肠丑补苍腻, 惭补迟补峁単补 cites a 艣濒辞办补 of Kohala in which he says that the svaras must be arranged in accordance with 濒补办峁�y补, in order to arrive at the different 箩腻迟颈, 产丑腻峁Ｄ� and raga (ref.para 2.1.4.1). 

It is interesting to note that in the context of svara, Kohala describes the production of sound by means of the 苍腻岣嵞玸. Such a description is more often encountered in works of the yogic tradition. The writers of the 尘腻谤驳补 system have not thought/ written on these lines. Perhaps another author who brings in the 苍腻岣嵞玸 in this regard, would be 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补, but he too was one who was well versed in the yogic tradition and his work 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 has several other descriptions of subjects of a yogic nature (辫颈峁囜笉辞迟辫补迟迟颈 etc.). The used of the term 苍腻岣嵞� lends a distinctly 诲别艣墨 flavor to Kohala, as seen through the 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨. In addition, the quotation relating svaras to the cries of different animals also is a custom that is not followed in the 尘腻谤驳补 tradition. N膩rad墨y膩 艢ik峁Ｄ� is probably one early work which speaks of svaras in this context. Of course, later works like the 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 do refer to animal cries in connection with svara, but they would fall under the category of 诲别艣墨 works. Therefore, it appears from these two quotations of Kohala that there is a hint of the 诲别艣墨 tradition in his work. Perhaps, he had covered subjects that belonged to both traditions. 

We have seen that Dattilam and 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 contain the earliest references to Kohala. On comparison of the contents (relating to Kohala) of the both these works, we find that each of them has referred to Kohala on a different aspect. Dattilam speaks of Kohala鈥檚 views on a matter relating to 迟腻濒补. Unfortunately, the 迟腻濒补 chapter of 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 is not available to us to check for any corroboration. And similarly, 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 has spoken of 艣谤耻迟颈, svara and 尘奴谤肠肠丑补苍腻, but these quotations are not to be found in Dattilam. 

It is known that Kohala was famous for his contribution especially to the field of 耻辫补谤奴辫补办补蝉 and several other subjects on 苍峁泃测补. Since the available texts of the two works Dattilam and 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 contain subject matter related to 驳墨迟补 alone, we have probably missed out on several references to Kohala on these subjects. It is clear that both these authors had in their possession, the/a work of Kohala. 

One text which follows 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 by quoting the same verses of Kohala is Sa峁叢的�迟补samayas膩ra of P膩r艣vadeva. Notably the 艣濒辞办补 of Kohala regarding the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s is absent here. Some later works on sa峁叢的�迟�� like Sa峁叢的�迟补sudh膩kara of Si峁僪abh奴p膩la, and Sa峁叢的�迟补s膩ram峁泃a of Tulaja, mention this 艣濒辞办补 on the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s. It is interesting to note that this particular 艣濒辞办补 is the only quotation of Kohala that has been transmitted through time from the 8th century C.E. to the 18th century C.E. No other concept or quotation of Kohala is seen repeatedly in 濒补办峁�a峁嘺驳谤补迟丑补蝉 over such a vast period of time. A question that arises here is that when the two commentators of 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 namely Kallin膩tha and Simhabh奴pala, (who were both post-Abhinavagupta authors) both quote this particular 艣濒辞办补 on the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s, it is conspicuous by its absence in 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨. We do find a discussion on 艣谤耻迟颈s by Abhinavagupta, but this 艣濒辞办补 of Kohala alone is not to be seen. Si峁僪abh奴p膩la and Kallin膩tha do not appear to have had access to 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨. If the Kohala seen in 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 is contrasted with that found in Sa峁叢的�迟补sudh膩kara and 碍补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈, it can be seen that apart from the verse on the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s, there is no other common material. In fact, 碍补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈 speaks of topics on 苍峁泃测补 (like 肠腻濒补办补, 惫补谤迟补苍腻 etc.) which are not found in 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨. In fact, in 碍补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈, this verse on the number of 艣谤耻迟颈s has not even been attributed to Kohala.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Even Bharata鈥檚 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 is presented as a conversation between Bharata and the other sages. Later works like 础耻尘腻辫补迟补尘 of 鲍尘腻辫补迟颈 or even 厂补峁単谤补丑补肠耻蝉岣嵞乵补峁噄 are in the form of conversations.