Kohala and Nāṭya (2): Number of Aṅgas of Nāṭya

सङ्ग्रहं दर्शयति—रसा भावा इत्यदिना । चशब्द इतिशब्दार्थे । अभिनयत्रयं गीतातोद्ये चेति पञ्चाङ्गं नाट्यम् । नटस्य हि रसभावयोगे मरणादौ तत्त्वावेशो लयादिभङ्गश्च स्यात् । दृष्टस्तु तत्प्रत्ययो नटे भ्रमः । अनेन तु श्लोकेन कोहलमतेनैकादशाङ्गत्वमुच्यते । न तु भरते । तत्सङ्गृहीतस्यापि पुनरत्रोद्देशः । निर्देशे चैतत्क्रमव्यत्यसनादित्यौद्भटाः । नैतदिति भट्टलोल्लटः । रसभावानामपि वासनावेशवशेन नटे सम्भवादनुबन्धिबलाच्च लयाद्यनुसरणादन्तर्भूतस्यापि प्रयोजनवशेन पुनरुद्देशदर्शनात् क्रमस्य चाविवक्षितत्वादिति । वयन्त्वत्र तत्त्वमग्रे वितनिष्याम इत्यस्तां तावत् ।

saṅgrahaṃ darśayati—rasā bhāvā ityadinā | caśabda itiśabdārthe | abhinayatrayaṃ gītātodye ceti pañcāṅgaṃ nāṭyam | naṭasya hi rasabhāvayoge maraṇādau tattvāveśo layādibhaṅgaśca syāt | dṛṣṭastu tatpratyayo naṭe bhramaḥ | anena tu ślokena kohalamatenaikādaśāṅgatvamucyate | na tu bharate | tatsaṅgṛhītasyāpi punaratroddeśaḥ | nirdeśe caitatkramavyatyasanādityaudbhaṭāḥ | naitaditi bhaṭṭalollaṭaḥ | rasabhāvānāmapi vāsanāveśavaśena naṭe sambhavādanubandhibalācca layādyanusaraṇādantarbhūtasyāpi prayojanavaśena punaruddeśadarśanāt kramasya cāvivakṣitatvāditi | vayantvatra tattvamagre vitaniṣyāma ityastāṃ tāvat |

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on 6.10, GOS Vol. I, p.258) 

This extract is a commentary on the following verse in Nāṭyaśāstra:

रसा भावा ह्यभिनया धर्मीवृत्तिप्रवृत्तयः ।
सिद्धिस्वरास्तथातोद्यं गानं रङ्गश्च संग्रहः ॥ (न्स् ६.१०)

rasā bhāvā hyabhinayā dharmīvṛttipravṛttayaḥ |
siddhisvarāstathātodyaṃ gānaṃ raṅgaśca saṃgrahaḥ || (NS 6.10)

Abhinava explains that the term saṅgraha (which can also be called uddeśa) includes the names of the subjects which are to be discussed in the work. According to the verse in Nāṭyaśāstra mentioned above, these are as follows:

1. rasa;
2. bhāva;
3. abhinaya;
4. dharmī;
5. vṛtti;
6. pravṛtti;
7. siddhi;
8. svara;
9. ātodya;
10. gāna;
11. raṅga;

In this context, Abhinava mentions the contradicting views of the audbhaṭas (the followers of Udbhaṭa) and of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa. The audbhaṭas are of the opinion that only the three abhinayas (āṅgika, vācika and sāttvika) along with gīta and ātodya can be called the aṅgas of nāṭya. They reason that if rasa, bhāva and such like are included as aṅgas, it would imply that the actor personally experiences the different states such as maraṇa. And further, such a situation would affect the tempo of the play. In actuality, our perception of the naṭa and his emotional states is an illusion (bhrama). The audbhaṭas say that this representation of nāṭya as having eleven aṅgas 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 Nāṭyaśāstra in this very same order. 

This view has been opposed by Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, who reasons that a naṭa can very well relish the rasas and bhāvas due to practice, experience and other circumstantial forces, without impeding the flow and tempo of the play. Regarding the order of subjects, Lollaṭa feels that one subject can be enumerated at different places in the course of a grantha and also that the order mentioned in the uddeśa 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’s disagreement with both the views of the audbhaṭas and Lollaṭa.

On examination of the list of subjects, we find included terms such as rasa, bhāva etc. Rasa is the aim of nāṭya and not an aṅga. It is interesting to note that while the term gāna, 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 gāna which might raise a question as to why it has been mentioned separately in this list. Perhaps in this context, the term svara connotes kāku vidhāna and not the technical musical term meaning a note. When nāṭya is looked at as a complete art form, gīta, vādya and abhinaya appear to be the logical elements or aṅgas therein. Inclusion of the terms raṅga, vṛtti etc. as aṅgas appears to be unaesthetic. On this subject, V. Raghavan says that Kohala has only restated as eleven, the five aṅgas of Bharata^[1]. Manmohan Ghosh quotes Nāṭyaśāstra 8.12 and refers to nāṭya as having six aṅgas. P. V. Kane refutes this theory on the ground that the reference in question i.e. Nāṭyaśāstra 8.12 refers to āṅgikābhinaya and not to nāṭya in general^[2]. 

This verse found in Nāṭyaśāstra 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 nāṭya. Furthermore his views have enjoyed much popularity, so much so that they have found their way into the mūla text of Nāṭyaśāstra itself, even before the time of Abhinavagupta (10th century C.E.).

V. Raghavan has mentioned the same thought when he says—

‘It appears also that the present text of Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata has incorporated into itself arts of earlier works and later works, chiefly Kohala’s among the latter. Evidences are not wanting to prove that part of Kohala’s text had entered and amplified the original of Bharata’^[3]

The text of Nāṭyaśāstra contains many ānuvaṃśya ślokas or verses of other eminent authors as part of its text and in the case of this particular verse i.e. Nāṭyaśāstra 6.10, we come to know of its original author (i.e. Kohala) only through the commentary of Abhinavagupta. 

The presence of several ānuvaṃśya ślokas is proof enough to show that the text of Nāṭyaśāstra contains interpolations of several authors. Even in the case of Kohala there is a considerable amount of textual material titled ‘pañcamodhyāya pariśiṣṭam’ following the fifth chapter namely pūrvaraṅga vidhānam. 

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

इति भारतीये नाट्यशास्त्रे कौहलीयं पूर्वरङ्गविधानं नाम पञ्चमोऽध्याय—परिशिष्टम् ।

iti bhāratīye nāṭyaśāstre kauhalīyaṃ pūrvaraṅgavidhānaṃ nāma pañcamo'dhyāya—pariśiṣṭam | ^[4]

However, there is some doubt regarding this section of text, due to which different editors of Nāṭyaśāstra 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 Nāṭyaśāstra 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’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa: 1963: p. 519

[4]:

Naṣṭyaśasstra of Bharatamuni: 2006: Vol I: p. 217