Kohala and Nāṭya (4): The concept of Daśarūpaka

1 Inclusion of other varieties of plays in the Daśarūpakas

उपरञ्जकमपि तत्र गीतं नाट्ययितं रूपकं वाद्याभिनययोश्च व्यक्त इति । तत्प्रयोगस्य (श्च) सर्वत्र । डोम्बिकाप्रस्थनषिद्गकभाणकभाणिकारागकाव्यादेर्दशरूपकलक्षणेनासङ्ग्रहान्ना ट्याद्भेद इति चेत् । तदैकान्तिकम् । तोटकप्रकरणिकारासकप्रभृतेस्तदसङ्गृहीतस्यापि नाट्यरूपत्वात् । “कोहलस्तु ब्रवीति” इति च परिहारस्य समानत्वात् । वाचिकोऽप्यभिनय आसीनपाठ्यादौ क्वचिदस्त्येव । “अहो गाणगाणबुल्लिभाण” इत्यदौ । आहार्यस्तु प्राधान्येनैकः कृतः भाणादावपि न क्षणे क्षणे परिवर्तते । सात्त्विकोऽप्यङ्गीकृत्य एव कोहलाद्यैः “सत्त्वातिरिक्तोऽभिनयः” इत्यदिवचनमालिखद्भिः । आङ्गिकस्तु स्फुट एव । अस्त्री (अन्यस्त्री) डोम्बिकाषिद्गकानामन्योन्यानन्वितत्त्वं वाक्यानामिव । समवकारेपि अङ्गानामस्त्रीप्रधानेऽर्थे तत्रान्वय इति चेदिहापि समानम् । देवतास्तुतेः स्त्रीपुंभावाश्रयस्य च शृङ्गारस्य सर्वत्रानुगमात्तस्यैव च प्राधान्याद्वक्ष्यति—“देवस्तुत्यश्रयकृतं स्त्रीपुंभावसमाश्रयम्” । इति । अत एव च चूडामणिडोम्बिकायां प्रतिज्ञातं “बिन्दुगुणं वमि सहि इहोदिवचो अमिदुणधं । महसारकः गेते उं (?)” । अत एव सहृदयाः स्मरन्ति “वध (स)मचूडामणिआ” (इति) । तस्मान्नृत्तं नाट्यादभिन्नं तल्लक्षणोपेतत्वात् ।

uparañjakamapi tatra gītaṃ nāṭyayitaṃ rūpakaṃ vādyābhinayayośca vyakta iti | tatprayogasya (śca) sarvatra | ḍombikāprasthanaṣidgakabhāṇakabhāṇikārāgakāvyāderdaśarūpakalakṣaṇenāsaṅgrahānnā ṭyādbheda iti cet | tadaikāntikam | toṭakaprakaraṇikārāsakaprabhṛtestadasaṅgṛhītasyāpi nāṭyarūpatvāt | “kohalastu bravīti” iti ca parihārasya samānatvāt | vāciko'pyabhinaya āsīnapāṭhyādau kvacidastyeva | “aho gāṇagāṇabullibhāṇa” ityadau | āhāryastu prādhānyenaikaḥ kṛtaḥ bhāṇādāvapi na kṣaṇe kṣaṇe parivartate | sāttviko'pyaṅgīkṛtya eva kohalādyaiḥ “sattvātirikto'bhinayaḥ” ityadivacanamālikhadbhiḥ | āṅgikastu sphuṭa eva | astrī (anyastrī) ḍombikāṣidgakānāmanyonyānanvitattvaṃ vākyānāmiva | samavakārepi aṅgānāmastrīpradhāne'rthe tatrānvaya iti cedihāpi samānam | devatāstuteḥ strīpuṃbhāvāśrayasya ca śṛṅgārasya sarvatrānugamāttasyaiva ca prādhānyādvakṣyati—“devastutyaśrayakṛtaṃ strīpuṃbhāvasamāśrayam” | iti | ata eva ca cūḍāmaṇiḍombikāyāṃ pratijñātaṃ “binduguṇaṃ vami sahi ihodivaco amiduṇadhaṃ | mahasārakaḥ gete uṃ (?)” | ata eva sahṛdayāḥ smaranti “vadha (sa)macūḍāmaṇiā” (iti) | tasmānnṛttaṃ nāṭyādabhinnaṃ tallakṣaṇopetatvāt |

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on Nātyaśātstra 4.260, GOS Vol I, GOS Vol. I, p.169)

In chapter four of Nāṭyaśāstra, Bharata describes the karaṇa, aṅgahāra, recaka and piṇḍi following which he says that Lord Śiva, after having created the recaka-aṅgahāras and piṇḍis taught these to the sage Taṇḍu who in turn created a dance form with songs and instrumental music.

Since this was created by Taṇḍu, it came to be known as Tāṇḍava. 

सृष्ट्वा भगवता दत्तास्तण्डवे मुनये तदा ।
तेनापि हि ततः सम्यग्गानभाण्डसमन्वितः ॥ ४.२६० ॥
नृत्तप्रयोगः सृष्टो यः स ताण्डव इति स्मृतः । ४.२६१ अब् ॥

sṛṣṭvā bhagavatā dattāstaṇḍave munaye tadā |
tenāpi hi tataḥ samyaggānabhāṇḍasamanvitaḥ || 4.260 ||
nṛttaprayogaḥ sṛṣṭo yaḥ sa tāṇḍava iti smṛtaḥ | 4.261 ab ||

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 1992: GOS Vol. I: pp.269-270

Abhinava here starts a discussion as to whether nṛtta is different from nāṭya or not. (nṛttam nāṭyādbhinnamabhinnam vā). He presents different views in this regard and also quotes from Rāhulaka and Vārtikakāra to support his arguments in the pūrvapakṣa. He continues the discussion by questioning whether rūpakas having the elements of gīta and abhinaya are to be considered as different from nāṭya. Abhinava says that this is not so. If ‘indicating a difference’ is the only purpose of this endeavour, it may be so, but such differences are seen everywhere (even within the daśarūpakas). He says that there are forms which have the abhinayas as well as music. Therefore Abhinava feels that the above argument does not hold good. Following this he gives examples to support his point of view. 

He quotes a verse from the 22nd chapter of Nāṭyaśāstra wherein Bharata prescribes the usage of abhinaya with appropriate bhāvas and rasas while performing the dhruvās.

स्थने ध्रुवास्वभिनयो यत् क्रियते हर्षशोकरोषाद्यैः ।
भावरसप्रयुक्तं ज्ञेयं नाट्यायितं तच्च ॥ २२.४७

sthane dhruvāsvabhinayo yat kriyate harṣaśokaroṣādyaiḥ |
bhāvarasaprayuktaṃ jñeyaṃ nāṭyāyitaṃ tacca || 22.47

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 1992: Comm. on 4.260: GOS Vol. I: p.169.

Dhruvās are musical compositions which are performed during the entry, exit etc. of the pātras. Such an association with rasa and bhava would place it within the framework of nāṭya. Abhinava says that both gīta which is relishable and rūpaka which is a form of nāṭya are also expressed using vādya and abhinaya. Their application is seen everywhere. 

Next, he raises the question as to whether forms such as ḍombika, prasthāna, ṣidgaka, bhāṇaka, bhāṇikā and rāgakāvya should be taken as different from nāṭya as they are not part of the daśarūpaka. He says that is definitely so. But some forms such as toṭaka, prakaraṇikā, rāsaka, and others, though not part of the daśarūpakas, are still given the status of nāṭya. Abhinava says that this is because of the dictum of Kohala. He mentions a statement—‘kohalastu bravīti’ (Kohala says so). He also gives examples to support his argument.

Abhinava says that in some lāsyāṅgas such as āsīnapāṭhya, vācikābhinaya can be seen. Though costumes are important, in rūpakas like bhāṇa which is a one-man act, they are not changed over and again. Even in the case of sāttvikābhinaya, though Kohala and others have prohibited its use in nṛtta, even they have been accepted in nāṭya. The case of āṅgika is clear (it is used everywhere). In the case of ḍombikā and ṣidgaka, only male actors are allowed and there too, there will not be any relation between them. Abhinava gives an explanation saying that just like there is no anvaya (relationship) between sentences (only between words in a single sentence), even in plays like samavakāra even though there is a plot without strī-pradhāna, there is anvaya (connection). He says that this has been well-established in cūḍāmaṇi-ḍombikā. Therefore he says that nṛtta is different from nāṭya due to their inherent differences in lakṣaṇa. 

In the above discussion Kohala has been mentioned twice. In the first case Abhinava draws on a statement of Kohala in order to strengthen his own argument that forms such as toṭaka would come under the head nāṭya though they are not part of the daśarūpakas. The canonic tone of the statement—“kohalastu bravīti” coupled with the manner Abhinava has employed it, gives a picture of the exalted stature Kohala enjoyed in his time. Kohala must have indeed been a great authority on nāṭya and his opinions must have held sway over many generations. The second instance is when Abhinava mentions that Kohala and others have prohibited the use of sāttvikābhinaya in nṛtta but have accepted its usage in nāṭya. All the above mentioned arguments along with Kohala’s opinions form the pūrvapakṣa of this discussion.

2 Aṅka

पताकास्थनकान्यत्र बिन्दुरन्ते च बीजवत् ॥
प्रयुज्यते यदि भवेत्तत्राङ्क इति कोहलः ।

patākāsthanakānyatra bindurante ca bījavat ||
prayujyate yadi bhavettatrāṅka iti kohalaḥ | 

—(Bhāvaprakāśana, Chapter VIII, p.236)

In the context of drama the term aṅka appears in three places. Firstly it is one of the daśarūpakas (aṅka / utsṛṣṭikāṅka), secondly it refers to the acts in a play and thirdly in arthopakṣepakas such as aṅkāvatāra, aṅkamukha and such like. In the above extract from the work Bhāvaprakāśana, the word aṅka is spoken of in the sense of an act of a play. 

Vidyānātha, the author of Pratāparudrīya defines aṅka as follows:

प्रत्यक्षनेत्रृचरितो बिन्दुव्यक्ति पुरस्कृतः ।
अङ्को नानाप्रकारार्थसंविधानरसाश्रयः ॥

pratyakṣanetrṛcarito binduvyakti puraskṛtaḥ |
aṅko nānāprakārārthasaṃvidhānarasāśrayaḥ ||^[1]

Śāradātanaya, in his work Bhāvaprakāśana also gives a detailed explanation of the term. Mostly he appears to have followed Bharata and has even quoted verses from Nāṭyaśāstra verbatim. 

अङ्क इति रूढिशब्दो भावैश्च रसैः प्ररोहयत्यर्थान् ।
नानाविधानयुक्तो यस्मात्तस्माद्भवेदङ्कः ॥

aṅka iti rūḍhiśabdo bhāvaiśca rasaiḥ prarohayatyarthān |
nānāvidhānayukto yasmāttasmādbhavedaṅkaḥ || 

This verse is found in Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya:1930: p.235 and in Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: V.18.14: GOS Vol. II: p.416

In this context he also mentions the opinion of Kohala on the subject. 

According to Kohala, at the end of an act, the bindu can also be used like the bīja. 

In the work Bhāvaprakāśana, this verse describing the opinions of Kohala is preceeded by others which are also found in the commentary of Pratāparudrīya.—

दूराध्वानं वधं युद्धं राज्यदेशादिविप्लवं ।
संरोधं भोजनं स्नानं सुरतं चानुलेपनम् ॥
अम्बरग्रहणादीनि प्रत्यक्षाणि न निर्दिशेत् ।
नाधिकारिवधः क्वापि कर्तव्यः कविभिस्तथा ॥
आवश्यकं तु यत् कार्यं न त्यज्यं तत्कदाचन ।
अधिकारिबधस्यापि क्वचित्स्यात्कल्पनं मतम् ॥
अर्वाक्प्रहारात्स पुनः प्रत्युज्जीविष्यते यदि ।
नायकस्य यद्गाहचरितप्रतिपादकः ॥
एकप्रयोजनाश्लिष्टस्तत्रैवासन्ननायकः ।
विदूषकादिभिः पात्रैः प्रयोज्यश्च चतुस्त्रिभिः ॥
समस्तपात्रनिष्क्रामावसानोऽङ्कोऽभिधीयते ।

dūrādhvānaṃ vadhaṃ yuddhaṃ rājyadeśādiviplavaṃ |
saṃrodhaṃ bhojanaṃ snānaṃ surataṃ cānulepanam ||
ambaragrahaṇādīni pratyakṣāṇi na nirdiśet |
nādhikārivadhaḥ kvāpi kartavyaḥ kavibhistathā ||
āvaśyakaṃ tu yat kāryaṃ na tyajyaṃ tatkadācana |
adhikāribadhasyāpi kvacitsyātkalpanaṃ matam ||
arvākprahārātsa punaḥ pratyujjīviṣyate yadi |
nāyakasya yadgāhacaritapratipādakaḥ ||
ekaprayojanāśliṣṭastatraivāsannanāyakaḥ |
vidūṣakādibhiḥ pātraiḥ prayojyaśca catustribhiḥ ||
samastapātraniṣkrāmāvasāno'ṅko'bhidhīyate |

—Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya: 1930: p. 236 and Pratāparudrīya: 1950: Comm.: p.83

Kumārasvāmi Somapīthi, the author of the commentary on Pratāparudrīya titled ‘Ratnāpaṇa’, says that these verses are the views of earlier ālaṅkārikas and are to be followed by all.—

इत्यादि प्रतिपादिता प्राचीनालङ्कारिक-पद्धतिर्-अनुसरणीया

ityādi pratipāditā prācīnālaṅkārika-paddhatir-anusaraṇīyā

Śāradātanaya has mentioned this view of Kohala since no other author of his time seems to have spoken about the possibility of using bindu just like bīja at the end of an act. Abhinavabhāratī, which is a pre-Śāradānaya work also does not mention any details of Kohala on the subject of bindu at the end of an act, though he has spoken of other devices in drama such as arthopakṣepakas.

3 Aṅka / Utsṛṣṭikāṅka

अथोत्सृष्टिकाङ्कलक्षणम्—
एवमुत्सृष्टिकाङ्कस्तु कर्तव्यः काव्यवेदिभिः ।
अस्याङ्कमेकं भरतो द्वावाङ्काविति कोहलः ॥
व्यासाञ्जनेयगुरवः प्राहुरङ्कत्रयं यदा ।
विष्कम्भकोऽत्र सङ्कीर्णः तत्र तत्र प्रवेशकः ॥
मुखनिर्वहणे सन्धी इति कोहलभाषितम् ।
ईहामृगवदित्यन्ये केऽप्याहुर्डिमसन्धिभिः ॥

athotsṛṣṭikāṅkalakṣaṇam—
evamutsṛṣṭikāṅkastu kartavyaḥ kāvyavedibhiḥ |
asyāṅkamekaṃ bharato dvāvāṅkāviti kohalaḥ ||
vyāsāñjaneyaguravaḥ prāhuraṅkatrayaṃ yadā |
viṣkambhako'tra saṅkīrṇaḥ tatra tatra praveśakaḥ ||
mukhanirvahaṇe sandhī iti kohalabhāṣitam |
īhāmṛgavadityanye ke'pyāhurḍimasandhibhiḥ || 

—(Bhāvaprakāśana, Chapter VIII, p.251) 

In the work Bhāvaprakāśana, Śāradātanaya elaborately gives the lakṣaṇa for utsṛṣṭikāṅka. He gives us the opinions of Bharata, Kohala, Āñjaneya and others on this subject. He says the plot must be a famous one and sometimes can also be a less famous one or one created by the poet. Can have the sāttvati s and ārabhaṭī vṛttis and at times can represent the bhayānaka rasa. On the other hand Viśvanātha^[2] and Vidyānātha^[3] say karuṇā rasa should be used. 

While discussing the number of permissible acts, Śāradātanaya mentions that utsṛṣṭikāṅka, according to Bharata must have only one aṅka, according to Kohala should have two, and according to Vyāsa and Añjaneya should have three. It is interesting that the extant text of Nāṭyaśāstra does not mention any number of acts. The viṣkambhaka should be of the saṅkīrṇa variety, i.e. the main characters, in the beginning of the lay will render a monologue/ dialogue in prākṛta instead of saṃskṛta. The author also mentions that Kohala has prescribed two sandhis viz. mukha and nirvahaṇa, and also mentions that some other authorities say the sandhis must be the same as those of īhāmṛga and yet others think these are to be used in the case of ḍima. He also mentions the subjects that can be chosen for the plot of aṅka. Such a discussion is not to be found in any other work on this subject. Dhanika says that utsṛṣṭikāṅka is a play within a play^[4].

4 Bhāṇa

कोहलादिभिराचार्यैरुक्तं भाणस्य लक्षणम् ।
लास्याङ्गदशकोपेतं सम्यगुत्पाद्यवस्तु च ॥
भारतीवृत्तिभूयिष्ठं शृङ्गारैकरसाश्रयम् ।
परस्वात्मानुभूतार्थधूर्तचारित्रवर्णनम् ॥
तत्तद्विटोक्तिप्रत्युक्तिविहिताकाशभाषितम् ।
मुखनिर्वहणप्रायसन्धियुग्रूपकं च यत् ॥
एकाङ्कश्च भवेद्भाण इति विद्वद्भिरुच्यते ।

kohalādibhirācāryairuktaṃ bhāṇasya lakṣaṇam |
lāsyāṅgadaśakopetaṃ samyagutpādyavastu ca ||
bhāratīvṛttibhūyiṣṭhaṃ śṛṅgāraikarasāśrayam |
parasvātmānubhūtārthadhūrtacāritravarṇanam ||
tattadviṭoktipratyuktivihitākāśabhāṣitam |
mukhanirvahaṇaprāyasandhiyugrūpakaṃ ca yat ||
ekāṅkaśca bhavedbhāṇa iti vidvadbhirucyate | 

—(Bhāvaprakāśana, Chapter VIII, p.245)

Śāradātanaya defines the term bhāṇa as a variety of a play which relates a story of a dhūrta (rogue), has a plot that relates a story of himself or of others, has characters like viṭa, paṇḍita and such like, contains conversations with the sky, demonstrates vīra and śṛṅgāra rasas, uses bhāratī vṛtti, has an imaginary plot, uses mukha and nirvahaṇa sandhis and employs the ten lāsyāṅgas. This definition seems to be on the same lines of Bharata. Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaṇa^[5] and Vidyānātha in his Pratāparudrīya^[6] also follow the same definition. Following this definition the Śāradātanaya proceeds to give the definition of Kohala and other ācāryas. The main point of difference between the two definitions is that Kohala prescribes śṛṅgāra rasa alone whereas Śāradātanaya says that bhāṇa could allow either vīra or śṛṅgāra rasa. Bharata remains silent on the matter of the appropriate rasa to be associated with bhāṇa.

5.1 Vīthī (Abhinavabhāratī)

तथा च कोहलः
वचसां संबद्धानामन्ते यत्स्यात्पदे त्वसंबन्धः ।
संबद्धमिवाभाति हि तद्गण्डो नाम वीथ्यङ्गम् ॥

tathā ca kohalaḥ
vacasāṃ saṃbaddhānāmante yatsyātpade tvasaṃbandhaḥ |
saṃbaddhamivābhāti hi tadgaṇḍo nāma vīthyaṅgam || 

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on 18.112-113, GOS Vol. II, p.458-459)

While discussing the definition of vīthī, Bharata says that it is a one act play which can be acted out by one or two actors, may contain any of uttama, madhyama and adhama characters, may contain any rasa. 

सर्वरसलक्षणाढ्या युक्ता ह्यङ्गैस्त्रयोदशभिः ।
वीथी स्यादेकाङ्का तथैकहार्या द्विहार्या वा । १८.११२ ॥
अधमोत्तममध्याभिर्युक्ता स्यात्प्रकृतिभिसृभिः । १८.११३अब्

sarvarasalakṣaṇāḍhyā yuktā hyaṅgaistrayodaśabhiḥ |
vīthī syādekāṅkā tathaikahāryā dvihāryā vā | 18.112 ||
adhamottamamadhyābhiryuktā syātprakṛtibhisṛbhiḥ | 18.113ab

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: pp.452-453

He says that vīthī has thirteen limbs (aṅgas). 

उद्घात्यकावलगितावस्पन्दितनाल्यसत्प्रलापाश्च । १८.११३च्द् ॥
वाक्केल्यथ प्रपञ्चो मृदवाधिबले छलं त्रिगतम् ॥
व्यवहारो गण्डश्च त्रयोदशाङ्गान्युदाहृतान्यस्याः ॥ १८.११४ ॥

udghātyakāvalagitāvaspanditanālyasatpralāpāśca | 18.113cd ||
vākkelyatha prapañco mṛdavādhibale chalaṃ trigatam ||
vyavahāro gaṇḍaśca trayodaśāṅgānyudāhṛtānyasyāḥ || 18.114 || 

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: p.453

The thirteen aṅgas of vīthī are—

1. udghātyaka,
2. avalagita, 
3. avaspandita, 
4. asat-pralāpa, 
5. prapañca, 
6. nāli-nālikā, 
7. vākkeli, 
8. adhivala,
9. chala, 
10. vyāhāra, 
11. mṛdava, 
12. trigata and
13. gaṇḍa. 

Bharata goes on to explain each of these. 

Abhinava, while explaining the aṅga called gaṇḍa says that when a character on stage in a state of excitement/ agitation, does the opposite of what he is supposed to do, or says something that will damage what was earlier said, that is called gaṇḍa. This device is called gaṇḍa because like a boil, it brings about a certain irritation to the main characters. 

When a sentence which appears incomplete is completed, but it reveals a meaning which is unintended and the opposite of what it is supposed to mean, it is called gaṇḍa.

संरम्भसंभ्रमयुतमिति संरम्भेणाकृतिविशेषेण यः संभ्रमः आवेगः तद्युक्तं यद्विरुद्धवस्तु यदनेन कृतं पूर्वोक्तवस्त्वपवदनमेव च तद्वचनं दृष्टार्थगर्भत्वात्, गण्ड इव गण्डः ईषदसमाप्तं वचनं बहुवचनं तत्कृतेनाक्षेपेण कृतं स्वयं प्रतिवचनतां पूर्ववचनस्य गतमित्यर्थः ।

saṃrambhasaṃbhramayutamiti saṃrambheṇākṛtiviśeṣeṇa yaḥ saṃbhramaḥ āvegaḥ tadyuktaṃ yadviruddhavastu yadanena kṛtaṃ pūrvoktavastvapavadanameva ca tadvacanaṃ dṛṣṭārthagarbhatvāt, gaṇḍa iva gaṇḍaḥ īṣadasamāptaṃ vacanaṃ bahuvacanaṃ tatkṛtenākṣepeṇa kṛtaṃ svayaṃ prativacanatāṃ pūrvavacanasya gatamityarthaḥ |

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: Comm. On V. 18.125-126: GOS Vol. II: pp.458-459

In this context Abhinavagupta quotes the above verse of Kohala which gives the definition of gaṇḍa. He (Kohala) says that gaṇḍa is that limb of vīthī wherein at the end of an apparently cogent speech, there is absence of cogency, but there appears to be some link/ cogency. 

While explaining gaṇḍa, Bharata only seems to have mentioned the reasons for the inappropriate combination of words to occur, whereas Kohala has taken a different approach.

संरंभसंभ्रमयुतं विवादयुक्तं तथापवादकृतम् । १२५ च्द् ।
बहुवचनाक्षेपकृतं गण्डं प्रवदन्ति तत्त्वज्ञाः ॥ १२६अब् ॥

saṃraṃbhasaṃbhramayutaṃ vivādayuktaṃ tathāpavādakṛtam | 125 cd |
bahuvacanākṣepakṛtaṃ gaṇḍaṃ pravadanti tattvajñāḥ || 126ab || 

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: p.458

Abhinava also gives an example from Veṇī samhāra of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa where Duryodhana says to his wife Bhānumati—

अध्यासितुं तव चिराज्जघनस्थलस्य पर्याप्तमेव करभोरु ममोरुयुग्मम्

adhyāsituṃ tava cirājjaghanasthalasya paryāptameva karabhoru mamoruyugmam

At this exact moment, the Kañcukī enters saying—

भग्नं भीमेन मरुता भवतो रथकेतनम्

bhagnaṃ bhīmena marutā bhavato rathaketanam

When the word ‘mamoru-yugmam’ (my two thighs) of Duryodhana is combined with ‘bhagnam’ (have been broken) uttered by the kañcukī, it gives a completely unintended and different meaning which gives rise to some confusion. This device is called gaṇḍa.

5.2 Vīthī (Abhinavabhāratī)

तथा चाह कोहलः उत्तमाधममध्याभिर्युक्ता प्रकृतिभिस्तथा ।
एकहार्या द्विहार्या वा सा वीथीत्यभिसंज्ञिता ॥ इति ।

tathā cāha kohalaḥ uttamādhamamadhyābhiryuktā prakṛtibhistathā |
ekahāryā dvihāryā vā sā vīthītyabhisaṃjñitā || iti | 

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on 18.112-113, GOS Vol. II, p.459) 

Having discussed all the thirteen aṅgas of vīthī, Abhinava quotes a verse of Kohala describing the play vīthī. Kohala says that in the play called vīthī there can be characters of the uttama (exalted), adhama (lowly) and madhya (middling) varieties and can comprise of one or two characters. This definition does not appear to have details about the number of aṅkas that are permissible or the rasas that are prescribed for this variety of play. 

Abhinava mentions that vīthī can be used to exhibit any rasa and thereby the appropriate kind of nāyaka (uttama, madhya and adhama) that will suit the chosen rasa. 

एतैः त्रयोदशभिरङ्गैर्युक्ता वीथी, तस्याश्च सर्वरसत्वस्याभिधानात् पर्यायेण रसानां प्राधान्यादुत्तमो मध्यमोऽधमो वा नायको भवत्येव ।

etaiḥ trayodaśabhiraṅgairyuktā vīthī, tasyāśca sarvarasatvasyābhidhānāt paryāyeṇa rasānāṃ prādhānyāduttamo madhyamo'dhamo vā nāyako bhavatyeva |

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: Comm. on 18.126ab: GOS Vol. II: p.459

The very same verse appears in the work Nāṭyadarpaṇa^[7] also.

5.3 Vīthī (Bhāvaprakāśana)

भवेयुर्वा न वेत्यस्यां लास्याङ्गान्याह कोहलः ।
वीथ्याः शृङ्गाररूपत्वाद्विधेयानीति भोजराट् ॥

bhaveyurvā na vetyasyāṃ lāsyāṅgānyāha kohalaḥ |
vīthyāḥ śṛṅgārarūpatvādvidheyānīti bhojarāṭ ||

—(Bhāvaprakāśana, Chapter VIII, p. 251)

Śaradātanaya defines the variety of daśarūpaka called vīthī as one which uses the mukha and nirvahaṇa sandhis, employs the kaiśikī vṛtti, uses either one or two characters, predominantly expresses the śṛṅgāra rasa and has elements such as uddhātyaka:

अथ वीथीलक्षणम् ।
मुखनिर्वहणे सन्धी वीथ्या वृत्तिस्तु कैशिकी ।
द्वाभ्यां प्रयोज्या पात्राभ्यां क्वचिदेकेन वा भवेत् ॥
अङ्गी सर्वरसस्पर्शी शृङ्गारोऽस्याः प्रधानतः ।
युक्ता लास्याङ्गवीथ्यङ्गैः सम्यगुद्धात्यकादिभिः ॥

atha vīthīlakṣaṇam |
mukhanirvahaṇe sandhī vīthyā vṛttistu kaiśikī |
dvābhyāṃ prayojyā pātrābhyāṃ kvacidekena vā bhavet ||
aṅgī sarvarasasparśī śṛṅgāro'syāḥ pradhānataḥ |
yuktā lāsyāṅgavīthyaṅgaiḥ samyaguddhātyakādibhiḥ || 

—Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya: 1930: Chapter VIII: p.251

The author seems to follow Bharata mostly. He brings in Kohala at this juncture to highlight the differences of opinion regarding the use of lāsyāṅgas in vīthī. While Kohala says that this is optional, Bhoja makes it mandatory due to the dominance of śṛṅgāra rasa. Śāradātanaya mentions that vīthī is a one-act play and gives two examples—‘balkula-vīthī’ and ‘indulekha’.

6.1 Viṣkambhaka (Nāṭyadarpaṇa)

अङ्कादाविति प्रथमेऽङ्के आमुखादूर्ध्वमन्येषु पुनरारम्भे इति तावत् सर्वे समामनन्ति । कोहलः पुनरेतं प्रथमाङ्कादावेवेच्छति ।

aṅkādāviti prathame'ṅke āmukhādūrdhvamanyeṣu punarārambhe iti tāvat sarve samāmananti | kohalaḥ punaretaṃ prathamāṅkādāvevecchati | 

—(Nāṭyadarpaṇa, Chapter I, Nāṭakanirṇaya, pp.37-38) 

This is the commentary on the following verses which describe the śuddha and aśuddha varieties of viṣkambhaka.

अङ्कानर्हस्य वृत्तस्य त्रिकालस्यानुरञ्जिना ।
सङ्क्षिप्य संस्कृतेनोक्तिरङ्कादौ मध्यमैर्जनैः ॥ १.१३ ॥
शुद्धो विषेकम्भकस्तत्र सङ्कीर्णो नीचमध्यमैः ।
अङ्कसन्धायकः शक्यसन्धानातीतकालवान् ॥ १.१४ ॥

aṅkānarhasya vṛttasya trikālasyānurañjinā |
saṅkṣipya saṃskṛtenoktiraṅkādau madhyamairjanaiḥ || 1.13 ||
śuddho viṣekambhakastatra saṅkīrṇo nīcamadhyamaiḥ |
aṅkasandhāyakaḥ śakyasandhānātītakālavān || 1.14 ||

Viṣkambhaka refers to an interlude between the acts of a play. It is performed by one or more characters-middling or inferior who connect the story of the drama and the subdivisions of the plot by briefly explaining to the audience what has occurred in the intervals of the act or what is likely to happen later on^[8]. 

Vidyānātha defines viṣkambhaka as follows—

वृत्तवर्तिष्यमाणानां कथांशानां निदर्शकः ।
संक्षेपार्तस्तु विष्कम्भो मध्यपात्रप्रयोजितः ॥

vṛttavartiṣyamāṇānāṃ kathāṃśānāṃ nidarśakaḥ |
saṃkṣepārtastu viṣkambho madhyapātraprayojitaḥ ||^[9]

Śāradātanaya also gives a similar definition for this term. In this context, Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra refer to Kohala’s view saying that though other authors have accepted that a viṣkambhaka can occur in any of the acts or subsequent to the āmukha in the first act, Kohala allows it only in the first act.

Bhoja also appears to hold the same view as Kohala:

प्रथमाङ्के प्रस्तावनानन्तरं विष्कम्भं कुर्यादिति भोजराजः । अन्यत्र अङ्कद्वयमित्यन्ये ।

prathamāṅke prastāvanānantaraṃ viṣkambhaṃ kuryāditi bhojarājaḥ | anyatra aṅkadvayamityanye |

—Pratāparudrīya: 1950: Nāṭaka prakaraṇam: Comm.: p.82

In practice both these versions seem to have been adopted by playwrights. For instance, in Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa, there is a viṣkambhaka in the beginning of the third act.

6.2 Viṣkambhaka (Abhinavabhāratī)

ननु कोहलेन मुखाङ्कस्य चायमन्तरान्तरे विहितः
मध्यमपुरुषनियोज्यो नाटकमुखसन्धिमात्रसञ्चारः ।
विष्कम्भको हि कार्यो नाटकयोगे प्रवेशकवत् ॥ इति

nanu kohalena mukhāṅkasya cāyamantarāntare vihitaḥ
madhyamapuruṣaniyojyo nāṭakamukhasandhimātrasañcāraḥ |
viṣkambhako hi kāryo nāṭakayoge praveśakavat || iti 

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on18.54-56, GOS Vol. II, p.434) 

This verse of Kohala has been quoted by Abhinavagupta in the context of Prakaraṇa. Abhinava says that in a prakaraṇa, the middling characters are used more than the nāyaka and therefore there will be many instances of the use of viṣkambhaka. By using either saṃskṛta or a mixture of saṃskṛta and prākṛta languages, the same matter which is conveyed by a praveśaka is to be presented in a viṣkambhaka. 

The brief accounts of events such as a war or loss of a kingdom which are part of the sandhis can be presented as a viṣkambhaka either in the first act or in between two acts:

प्रकरणे नायकापेक्षया प्रायशः उपयोगिनोस्पि मध्यमा एव संभवन्तीति तत्र विष्कम्भकस्य बाहुल्येन संभावनमित्यशयेन प्रकरणे विष्कम्भकं लक्षयति मध्यमपुरुषैरिति । विष्कम्भयत्युपस्थम्भयतीति विष्कम्भकः । संस्कृतेन वचनेनानुगतं च सङ्कीर्णोऽप्यस्त्येवेति प्रवेशकेन वार्थक्रियाकर्तव्यतामेव कर्तव्यत्वेनाभिसंधानाय विष्कम्भकः कार्यः । तामेवार्थक्रियां स्पष्टयति संक्षेपात्सम्धीनामर्थानां चेति । सन्धीनां यः संक्षेपो युद्धराज्यभ्रंशादीनां चार्थानां यः संक्षेपस्तमभिसन्धानाय अङ्कस्याङ्कयोर्वान्तराले मध्ये विष्कम्भको योज्यः

prakaraṇe nāyakāpekṣayā prāyaśaḥ upayoginoSpi madhyamā eva saṃbhavantīti tatra viṣkambhakasya bāhulyena saṃbhāvanamityaśayena prakaraṇe viṣkambhakaṃ lakṣayati madhyamapuruṣairiti | viṣkambhayatyupasthambhayatīti viṣkambhakaḥ | saṃskṛtena vacanenānugataṃ ca saṅkīrṇo'pyastyeveti praveśakena vārthakriyākartavyatāmeva kartavyatvenābhisaṃdhānāya viṣkambhakaḥ kāryaḥ | tāmevārthakriyāṃ spaṣṭayati saṃkṣepātsamdhīnāmarthānāṃ ceti | sandhīnāṃ yaḥ saṃkṣepo yuddharājyabhraṃśādīnāṃ cārthānāṃ yaḥ saṃkṣepastamabhisandhānāya aṅkasyāṅkayorvāntarāle madhye viṣkambhako yojyaḥ

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: Comm. on NS 18.54-56: GOS Vol. II: pp.433-434

(Refer to para 2.3.6 for information on sandhi). 

Bharata has not mentioned the exact method for the use of viṣkambhaka in prakaraṇa. In order to do so, Abhinava takes the word ‘aṅkāntarāla’ and interprets it as ‘aṅkasya aṅkayorvā antarāralaḥ’. Since the praveśaka can only be used in between aṅkas, the use of the word ‘aṅkasya’ indicating the first act automatically includes the viṣkambhaka.

Having given this brief explanation about the usage of viṣkambhaka in the prakaraṇa, Abhinavagupta proceeds to quote a verse of Kohala on this subject by saying—

ननु कोहलेन मुखाङ्कस्य च अयम् अन्तरान्तरे विहितः.

nanu kohalena mukhāṅkasya ca ayam antarāntare vihitaḥ.

The editions of R. S. Nagar^[10] and Pushpendra Kumar^[11] read this as—

ननु कोहलेन मुखसन्धेरङ्कस्य चायमन्तराले विहितः

nanu kohalena mukhasandheraṅkasya cāyamantarāle vihitaḥ

This reading appears to bring out Abhinava’s point better. He says that the viṣkambhaka is thus prescribed either in the interludes of the mukhasandhi or in the first act itself. Kohala says that if a playwright wants to use a mukha-sandhi like an interlude and if also if he wants to use only madhyama patras, then the viṣkambhaka should be used in between acts just like the praveśaka. It is not clear if this quotation of Kohala’s is to be applied in a restricted manner only in relation to prakaraṇa or it can be used for any type of dramatic presentation in general.

7.1 Arthopakṣepaka (Abhinavabhāratī)

अनया त्वार्यया अङ्कस्य त्रैविध्यमुच्यते । तथा चोक्तं कोहलादौ (कोहलेन)—
त्रिधाङ्कोऽङ्कावतारेण चूडयाङ्कमुखेन वा ।
अर्थोपक्षेपणं चूडा बह्ववर्थैः सूतवन्दिभिः ॥
अङ्कस्याङ्कान्तरे योगस्त्ववतारः प्रकीर्तितः ।
विश्लिष्टमुखमङ्कस्य स्त्रिया वा पुरुषेण वा ॥
यदुपक्षिप्यते पूर्वं तदङ्कमुखमिष्यते ॥ (ना.शा १९.१२६)

anayā tvāryayā aṅkasya traividhyamucyate | tathā coktaṃ kohalādau (kohalena)—
tridhāṅko'ṅkāvatāreṇa cūḍayāṅkamukhena vā |
arthopakṣepaṇaṃ cūḍā bahvavarthaiḥ sūtavandibhiḥ ||
aṅkasyāṅkāntare yogastvavatāraḥ prakīrtitaḥ |
viśliṣṭamukhamaṅkasya striyā vā puruṣeṇa vā ||
yadupakṣipyate pūrvaṃ tadaṅkamukhamiṣyate || (nā.śā 19.126)

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on 18.14, GOS Vol. II, pp.416-417)

This quotation from Kohala is found in Abhinavabhāratī when Abhinava explains the term aṅka (act). He says that in an act of a play, the different sentiments such as śṛṅgāra and the bhāvas such as śoka are seemingly placed on the lap of the sāmājikas by the hero and other characters of the play. In that perspective, the word aṅka here is used almost in the sense of utsaṅga (lap). Hence Bharata calls it a rūḍhi śabda.

Abhinava also explains in detail all the facets of aṅka as expressed by Bharata and in doing so expresses the opinions of other ancient authors:

अङ्क इति रूढिशब्दो भावैश्च रसैश्च रोहत्यर्थान् ।नानाविधानयुक्तो यस्मात्तस्माद्भवेदङ्कः ॥

aṅka iti rūḍhiśabdo bhāvaiśca rasaiśca rohatyarthān |nānāvidhānayukto yasmāttasmādbhavedaṅkaḥ || 

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: Comm. on 18.14: pp. 414-415

Subsequently Abhinava quotes two and a half verses of Kohala in order to explain the three types of aṅka. These are—

1. cūḍā,
2. aṅkāvatāra and
3. aṅkamukha. 

Kohala then gives an example for each of these varieties. He says that when the audience is informed about certain events by a sūta (charioteer) or vandi (the person who sings to wake up a king) it is known as cūḍā. When one act of a play is connected directly with another act without any breaks, it is called aṅkāvatāra. At the end of an act, when a male or female actor indicates what is to happen in the beginning of the next act, it is called aṅkamukham. Abhinava also gives examples for these from Śrīharṣa’s Ratnāvalī. It is interesting that Abhinava specifically mentions that these verses are in the āryā metre, when they are actually in the anuṣṭup metre. 

The above terms, namely cūḍā (cūlikāṅka), aṅkāvatāra and aṅkamukha (aṅkāsya) are varieties of arthopakṣepakas. Arthopakṣepakas are devices used to describe the events that have taken place between two acts of a play. 

These are not enacted on stage. Dhanañjaya lists the five types of arthopakṣepakas thus:

विष्कम्भचूलिकाङ्कास्यप्रवेशाङ्कावतारणैः

viṣkambhacūlikāṅkāsyapraveśāṅkāvatāraṇaiḥ^[12]

Vidyānātha in his Pratāparudrīya defines each of these. On comparing the definitions of Kohala with that of Vidyānātha we find that they are more or less identical. There are some minor differences. For instance, while Kohala mentions that cūḍā is to be performed by characters like sūta or vandi, Vidyānātha mentions that this is to be performed from behind the curtain. Further the names have minor variations. Perhaps what was known by the name cūḍā in the times of Kohala later came to be known as cūlikā. 

But why should arthopakṣepakas be brought into a discussion where the term aṅka (act of a play) is being discussed? The reason could be that these terms also have the suffix of ‘aṅka’ (ankāvatāra etc.) and Abhinava wants to make sure that these are not mistaken for or confused with aṅka (act). It is noteworthy that Abhinava has only quoted those verses of Kohala which define those arthopakṣepakas which could possibly be confused with aṅka (act). The other two namely viṣkambhaka and praveśaka have not been quoted. Perhaps there was another verse of Kohala which defined these two too.

Bharata says that when all the actors leave the stage it indicates the end of an act. 

निष्क्रामः सर्वेषां यस्मिन्नङ्कः स विज्ञेयः ॥ १८.१९च्द् ॥

niṣkrāmaḥ sarveṣāṃ yasminnaṅkaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ || 18.19cd ||

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: p.418

Abhinavagupta brings out the point that unlike the previously spoken arthopakṣepakas which can be performed by minor characters like sūta, vaitālika and others, the main plot of the drama must be conveyed only by the hero, heroine, villain or other major characters in the play. And further, the main plot of the play should not be conveyed in the praveśaka. 

To sum up, Abhinavagupta brings a quotation of Kohala about arthopakṣepakas into a discussion of the definition of aṅka in order to avoid any confusion due to the similarity in the names. Also he wants to drive the point that the main plot of the drama should be enacted by the main characters (such as the hero) and should not be indicated (by sūta) as in the case of arthopakṣepakas like praveśaka.

7.2 Arthopakṣepaka (Abhinavabhāratī)

ननु तन्मध्ये यत्कार्यं मध्याह्वनस्नानभोजनादि तद्दिवसमध्य एव वा यद्वृत्तं दूरस्थं दशरथमरणादि तत्कथं वाच्यमित्यह—दिवसावसानकार्यमिति । दिवसेऽवसानं समाप्तिर्यस्य तत् सर्वं कार्यं यद्यङ्के प्रत्यक्षेण प्रदर्शयितुं न युज्यते तदाङ्कच्छेदं कृत्वा प्रवेशकै: प्रदर्शनीयम् । अदृष्टमप्यर्थं हृदि प्रवेशयन्तीति प्रवेशकाः । चूलिकाङ्कावताराङ्कमुखप्रवेशकविष्कंभका इहाभिप्रेताः । तथा च कोहलोऽर्थोपक्षेपपञ्चकमुक्तवान् ।

nanu tanmadhye yatkāryaṃ madhyāhvanasnānabhojanādi taddivasamadhya eva vā yadvṛttaṃ dūrasthaṃ daśarathamaraṇādi tatkathaṃ vācyamityaha—divasāvasānakāryamiti | divase'vasānaṃ samāptiryasya tat sarvaṃ kāryaṃ yadyaṅke pratyakṣeṇa pradarśayituṃ na yujyate tadāṅkacchedaṃ kṛtvā praveśakai: pradarśanīyam | adṛṣṭamapyarthaṃ hṛdi praveśayantīti praveśakāḥ | cūlikāṅkāvatārāṅkamukhapraveśakaviṣkaṃbhakā ihābhipretāḥ | tathā ca kohalo'rthopakṣepapañcakamuktavān |

—(Abhinavabhāratī, Commentary on 18.26-27, GOS Vol. II, pp.420-421) 

This part of the commentary of Abhinavabhāratī also relates to the discussion on the subject of aṅka (act of a play). 

The above extract is the commentary on the following verses in the Nāṭyaśāstra.

दिवसावसानकार्यं यद्यङ्के नोपपद्यते सर्वम् ।
अङ्कच्छेदं कृत्वा प्रवेशकैस्तद्विधातव्यम् ॥ १८.२६ ॥
विप्रकृष्टं तु यो देशं गच्छेत्कार्यवशानुगः ।
अङ्कच्छेदेऽथ संक्षेपान्निर्दिशेत्तं प्रवेशकैः ॥ १८.२७ ॥

divasāvasānakāryaṃ yadyaṅke nopapadyate sarvam |
aṅkacchedaṃ kṛtvā praveśakaistadvidhātavyam || 18.26 ||
viprakṛṣṭaṃ tu yo deśaṃ gacchetkāryavaśānugaḥ |
aṅkacchede'tha saṃkṣepānnirdiśettaṃ praveśakaiḥ || 18.27 ||

(Trans: When events that are to be finished in the course of a day cannot be accommodated in an Act, these should be presented in an Introductory Scene after closing the [same] Act. By closing the Act in which they begin events requiring a month, or a year but never more than that for their happening, are also to be presented similarly.)^[13]

Abhinava says that there are some activities such as the afternoon lunch or an event that happened at a great distance (like the death of Daśaratha) which cannot be presented on stage. In such cases the act is split up and these are presented through a praveśaka. Abhinava says that the praveśaka is so called because it can make even unseen events enter the hearts of the audience. Here the word praveśaka is indicative of all the five arthopakṣepakas namely cūlikā, aṅkāvatāra, aṅkamukha, praveśaka and viśkambhaka. At this point he mentions that Kohala has explained all of these arthopakśepakas. Unfortuntely we only have Kohala’s definitions of three of these namely cūḍa (cūlikā), aṅkāvatāra and aṅkamukha as seen in the previous paragraph.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Pratāparudrīya: 1950: p.83

[2]:

Sāhityadarpaṇa:1997: p.353

[3]:

Pratāparudrīya: 1950:: V. 54cd-55: p. 92

[4]:

Pratāparudrīya:1950: Comm.: p.92

[5]:

Sāhityadarpaṇa: 1997: p.350

[6]:

Pratāparudrīya: 1950: V.39-40: p. 89

[7]:

Nāṭyadarpaṇa: 1986: Chap II: p.132

[8]:

The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary: 1965: p. 525

[9]:

Pratāparudrīya: 1950: Nāṭaka prakaraṇam: p.82

[10]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 1984: Vol. II: p.316

[11]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2006: Vol. II: p. 660

[12]:

Pratāparudrīya: 1950: Comm.: p. 82

[13]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2006: Vol. II: pp.648-649