365bet娱乐

厂补峁単墨迟补蝉耻诲丑腻 (1614 C.E.) of Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补 gives us five references to Kohala. Kohala is mentioned while speaking on the topics of 迟腻苍补 (ref.para 2.1.5), 补濒补峁卥腻谤补 (ref.para 2.1.6), 补耻岣岛惫补 (ref.para 2.1.9.2) and 蝉迟丑腻测补 (ref.para 2.1.10)besides being included in the list of 辫奴谤惫腻肠腻谤测补蝉. It can be observed that for most part, Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补 has reproduced what 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补 has said in his 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补, albeit in the 腻谤测腻 metre. The mention of the name of Kohala, as is the case of the references to many other authors cited in this work, seems to have been more a gesture to add authority to his text rather than to present or discuss opinions put forth by them. 

For instance, Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补 uses the name of Dattila and Kohala while explaining the topic of 蝉迟丑腻测补. Dattila is an established author of 驳腻苍诲丑补谤惫补. He does not set foot outside this framework. The concept of 蝉迟丑腻测补 comes in the music of the 诲别艣墨 蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻测补. Therefore, the linking of Dattila to this subject does not appear a correct representation. In the case of Kohala, though there is not much conclusive evidence (as in the case of Dattila) regarding the framework within which he operates, the inclusion of his name too in this regard sounds superfluous. In the same way, it also appears that Kohala might not be directly related to any of the other technical aspects, where too his name has been cited. 

It is interesting to note that this is the case for other authors mentioned in 厂补峁僩墨迟补-蝉耻诲丑腻 also. For instance, while enumerating the classes of 艣谤耻迟颈蝉, Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补 says that these are the opinions of Bharata, Dattila, 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补 and Durg膩艣akti. Authors like Bharata and Dattila lived in times much earlier to this concept and their works (those that are available) reflect no material on this subject. Yet Govinda mentions their names. 

Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补, in many cases has not attributed the source of his information to 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补. Instead, as seen above, he has referred to much earlier authorities like Dattila, 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补, 艢腻谤诲奴濒补, Kohala, Durg膩艣akti and others. His intention was perhaps to enhance the antiquity and authority of his work. But the subjects regarding which these names are mentioned (as discussed above) and the available information about them are invariably unrelated. 

It is noteworthy that no direct quotations of Kohala are found in 厂补峁単墨迟补-蝉耻诲丑腻. Further, Kohala is always mentioned along with the name of another ancient writer (in this case either 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补 or Dattila). On comparison with earlier works, it is found that none of the entries relating to Kohala in 厂补峁単墨迟补蝉耻诲丑腻 match with those found in any other works. Thus from the above, it can be inferred that Govinda 顿墨办峁�i迟补 did not possess any work of Kohala from which he sources material on technical aspects. Therefore, this author and work will not play much of a role in the understanding of Kohala.