365bet娱乐

叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 (1175-1250 C.E.) is a very significant work in dramaturgy, even more so in the case of Kohala. The definition of bindu (ref.para 2.3.6.2), usage of bindu at the end of an act, Kohala鈥檚 optional rule of 辫补迟腻办补 in 苍腻峁瓂补 the definition of 产丑腻峁嘺 according to Kohala (ref.para 2.3.4.4), the optional usage of 濒腻蝉测补峁単补蝉 in 惫墨迟丑颈 and the number of acts (two) in 耻迟蝉峁涐梗峁璱办腻峁卥补 (ref.para 2.3.4.3)鈥攁re the contexts in which the name and views of Kohala are mentioned. 

A point of interest here is that a few topics related to Kohala, which Abhinavagupta discusses (like 惫峁泃迟颈, 辫奴谤惫补谤补峁単补 etc.) are not to be found in 叠丑腻惫补-辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 and similarly, some that are discussed in 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 (sandhi, bindu etc.) are not found in 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨. Furthermore, though there are common subjects like 补峁卥补 and 惫墨迟丑颈 which are discussed both in 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨 and 叠丑腻惫补prak膩艣a峁嘺, the context and the exact point being discussed are different. This could raise a question as to whether the work of Kohala that Abhinavagupta and 艢膩rad膩tanaya possessed were one and the same. Further, it can be noticed that all the subjects that Kohala is referred to relate to the 尘腻谤驳补 tradition. According to the views of Yadugiri Yatir膩ja Swami^[1], 艢膩rad膩tanaya has perhaps referred to Kohala only in the instances where he differs from Bharata.

By the time of 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, a relationship between Kohala and the system of 耻辫补谤奴辫补办补蝉 had already evolved as is seen from references in his work. In this light, the fact that 叠丑腻惫补-辫谤补办腻艣补苍补, which was a post-础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨 work, not containing any references of/to Kohala in the context of 耻辫补谤奴辫补办补蝉, inspite of having a whole chapter (9th chapter) dedicated to the subject, seems a little strange. But it should be borne in mind that, 艢膩rad膩tanaya鈥檚 delineation of the subject of 耻辫补谤奴辫补办补蝉 is much on the same lines as Bhoja鈥檚 艢峁涐箙驳腻谤补辫谤补办腻艣补 and many verses found herein are repeated in the 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 verbatim. And, Bhoja does not mention Kohala or for that matter, any other authority to whom he refers to on the subject of the 耻辫补谤奴辫补办补蝉. Therefore, 艢膩rad膩tanaya might not have felt the need to quote/ refer to Kohala.

Post 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, there are only a few works that collectively deal with all three subjects鈥�驳墨迟补, 苍峁泃测补 and 苍腻峁瓂补. More often than not, we find works dedicated to just one of these. However, works on sa峁叢的�迟�� are seen to contain information about both 驳墨迟补 and 苍峁泃测补. 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 belongs to the first category, where a detailed treatment of the aspect of 苍腻峁瓂补 is found and the aspects of 驳墨迟补 and 苍峁泃测补 left untouched. But evidently, 艢膩rad膩tanaya did have access to some work(s) of Kohala. But as seen earlier, it is possible that the source material of Kohala used by Abhinavagupta and 艢膩rad膩tanaya were different. A comparison of 叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 with works prior to 础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨 does not yield any results due to the fact that works like Dattilam and 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣颈 do not speak of 苍腻峁瓂补 and 叠丑腻惫补-辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 does not speak about 苍峁泃测补. Therefore, even in the event that 惭补迟补峁単补 or Dattila or both had the same work of Kohala that 艢膩rad膩tanay膩 refers to, it cannot be proved for the reason that none of them speak on any common subjects.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

叠丑腻惫补辫谤补办腻艣补苍补 of 艢膩rad膩tanaya: 1968: p.32