365bet娱乐

碍补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈 (1450 C.E.) is a commentary on 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 by Catura Kallin膩tha. This work is the one that gives us the largest volume of reference material about Kohala. In the commentary on 狈补谤迟补苍腻诲丑测腻测补, Kallin膩tha quotes a large number of 艣濒辞办补蝉 on 办补谤补惫补谤迟补苍腻蝉 (ref.para 2.2.4.1), 肠腻濒补办补蝉 (ref.para 2.2.5.1) and madhupa 肠腻谤墨s (ref.para 2.2.10.1). This material according to him is from a work called 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 written by Kohala. This work is presented in the format of a conversation between sage 艢腻谤诲奴濒补 and Kohala, where the former asks questions and the latter answers them. Kallinatha, while speaking about the 肠腻濒补办补蝉 brings out the possible reason for 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补 having left out a delineation of this subject in his work. 

He feels that this was because they were so popular in practice that the author (艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补) did not see the necessity to do so.

啶む�囙し啶距�� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啷嵿く啶�啷嵿ぐ啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶む�嵿さ啶距い啷嵿い啷� 啶むい 啶忇さ啶距さ啶椸え啷嵿い啶掂�嵿く啶� 啶囙い啷嵿く啶む�嵿�� 啶椸�嵿ぐ啶ㄠ�嵿ぅ啶曕ぞ啶班�囙�� 啶ㄠ�嬥�曕�嵿い啶距�� 啷むい啷囙し啶距�� 啶曕�囙し啶距�傕�氞た啶む�嵿じ啷嵿さ啶班�傕お啶�啶班た啶溹�嵿�炧ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶曕�嬥す啶侧�嬥�曕�嵿い啶距え啶� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀ぞ啶ㄠた 啶侧た啶栢�嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷�

te峁Ｄ佱箖 lak峁�yaprasiddhatv膩tte tata ev膩vagantavy膩 ityatra granthak膩re峁嘺 nokt膩岣� |te峁Ｄ佱箖 ke峁Ｄ佱箖citsvar奴paparij帽膩n膩ya kohalokt膩ni lak峁�a峁嚹乶i likhyante

鈥敵Р贯箙g墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 of 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补: 1953: Vol. IV: p. 110

The material of 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 is one of the few instances where a concept related to Kohala is found repeated many times in different texts. As seen above, Kallin膩tha quotes Kohala in three subjects viz. 尘补诲丑耻辫补肠腻谤墨-s, 惫补谤迟补苍腻蝉 and 肠腻濒补办补蝉. The material in 尘补诲丑耻辫补肠腻谤墨s and 惫补谤迟补苍腻蝉 is seen in 狈峁泃测腻诲丑测腻测补 of A艣okamalla and 厂补峁単墨迟补谤腻箩补 of Mah膩r膩峁嘺 Kumbha. The material on 肠腻濒补办补蝉 is found in 狈峁泃测腻诲丑测腻测补 and 厂补峁単墨迟补肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄 of Vema 叠丑奴辫补濒补. In fact, Kumbha even mentions that he has directly quoted this material from Kallin膩tha鈥檚 commentary on 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补. However, A艣okamalla presents the material in his own words and in the case of the 尘补诲丑耻辫补肠腻谤墨 (which he calls 尘耻岣岛辫补 肠腻谤墨), he has given just the list of names without their definitions (like the ones in 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻). 

It is a significant fact that the title of Kohala鈥檚 work has been given by Kallin膩tha. The use of the term 鈥�蝉补峁単墨迟补鈥� in the title is indicative of the fact that this work belonged to a period later than the 11th century C.E. It was works like 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 which were forerunners of the tradition using the prefix 鈥�蝉补峁単墨迟补鈥� for works on music and dance. Therefore, from the very title 鈥�厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻鈥�, it becomes clear that this Kohala had nothing to do with the Kohala who was the contemporary of Bharata. 

But in the following statement of Kallin膩tha鈥�

啶忇い啶距じ啶距�� 啶氞い啷佮し啷嵿お啶炧�嵿�氞ぞ啶多�氞�嵿�氞ぞ啶班た啶｀ぞ啶� 啶︵�囙ざ啷�啶む�嵿さ啶� 啶�啶班い啶距え啷佮�曕�嵿い啶む�嵿さ啷� 啶膏い啶� 啶曕�嬥す啶侧ぞ啶︵�嵿く啷佮�曕�嵿い啶む�嵿さ啶距い啷� 啶︵�嵿ぐ啶粪�嵿�熰さ啷嵿く啶�啷� 啷�

et膩s膩峁� catu峁�pa帽c膩艣acc膩ri峁嚹佱箖 诲别艣墨tva峁� bharat膩nuktatve sati kohal膩dyuktatv膩t dra峁ａ弓avyam |

The juxtaposition of the views of Bharata and Kohala does hint that he perhaps held the opinion that 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 was indeed written by Bharata鈥檚 pupil. Even a work like 狈峁泃迟补谤补迟苍腻惫补濒颈 of 闯腻测补 厂别苍腻辫补迟颈 which belongs to the 12th century C.E. and speaks about aspects of dance, does not mention any of these concepts. 

The subjects of 惫补谤迟补苍腻蝉, 肠腻濒补办补蝉 etc. are concepts that perhaps developed only after 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 and so they would fall under the 诲别艣墨 tradition. The references to Kohala in earlier works like 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨 and 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 speak of Kohala on subjects of the 尘腻谤驳补 tradition. The completely 诲别艣墨 complexion of Kohala in this work is also an indication that 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 was a later work which was attributed to a Kohala. 

Based on the above discussions it can be inferred that this work was probably written sometime around the 13th century C.E, to which the name of Kohala became associated. It is possible that at that time there existed an author who was also called Kohala, or might just be a work attributed to an established authority in order to garner some fame for the work. V. Raghavan says that 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 might be that work of Kohala鈥檚 which Abhinava mentions. This theory cannot be justified, because there are simply no common readings between the two works. But it is reasonable to say that at the time of Kallin膩tha, a work by the name of 厂补峁単墨迟补尘别谤耻 attributed to a Kohala did exist. Based on the fact that no other earlier work mentions this treatise by name it can be assumed that this was a later work which went under the name Kohala.