Part 4 - Citations of Kohala in the Abhinavabhāratī

Abhinavabhāratī (11th Century C.E.), the masterly commentary of Abhinavagupta on the Nāṭyaśāstra is perhaps the earliest and most significant source of information on Kohala. The text of Abhinavagupta refers to the name of Kohala on thirty four occasions. Prior to Abhinavabhāratī, lakṣaṇagranthas have given us very meagre information on a few subjects such as śruti, svara, tāla etc. But Abhinavagupta expands the width and depth of the subjects that Kohala has spoken of and in this way, is very significant in the study of Kohala. 

Performing traditions are classified two-fold i.e. the mārga tradition and the deśī tradition. Bharata, in his Nāṭyaśāstra speaks only of the subjects that belong to the former category. Another work pertaining to the same period that elaborates on the mārga tradition is Dattilam of Dattila. 

On the other hand, deśī is spoken of thus by V. Raghavan—

‘The rough and ready definition of deśī supplied by Kallinātha that it is what Bharata did not speak of, but Kohala and others spoke about^[1].’ 

If this statement be accepted, then it would indicate that Kohala was an author who mainly, if not wholly dealt with the deśī tradition.

Before going into that matter, it would be necessary to understand the connotation of mārga and deśī. It is Śārṅgadeva who makes a clear cut demarcation of what mārga and deśī would include. Mārga would include all the aspects that are a part of dramatic presentation of the daśarūpaka format such as the gītakas, mārga tālas, karaṇas, aṅgahāras etc. Whereas in the deśī tradition, prabandhas, gauṇḍali vidhi, deśī tāla-s, rāga-s, bhāṣas etc. are involved. If the statement of V. Raghavan is accepted, then Kohala must have spoken on the above subjects. But he has not. The following paragraphs will study the topics covered by Kohala in Abhinavabhāratī from this perspective.

On the subject of nāṭya, Abhinava refers to Kohala in the context of vṛtti to be used for particular rasa-s, mukha-sandhi in prakaraṇa, arthopakṣepaka, the number of syllables in a nāndī, movement of the naṭī after the nāndī, gaṇḍa—a limb of vīthī, number of aṅkas (acts) in the vīthī and plays like saindhavaka using different languages. All the above subjects would beyond doubt fall under mārga, as they have all been spoken of by Bharata. Abhinavagupta merely calls upon Kohala to supply some additional information to what Bharata has already said.

Another important facet of nāṭya, relating to which Abhinavagupta refers to Kohala, is the uparūpakas. Kohala today is known primarily as one of the formulators/ pioneers of minor dramatic forms called the uparūpakas. The earliest work to show us this facet of Kohala was Abhinavabhāratī. From his work, we come to know that Kohala has defined several of these uparūpakas such as toṭaka, saṭṭaka, rāsaka etc. (ref.para 2.3.4.1). There is also a direct quotation which gives the definition of the uparūpaka called rāgakāvya (ref.para 2.3.7.2). These put together, would lead us to understand that Kohala had clearly defined all the different varieties of uparūpakas.

Uparūpakas are considered a part of the deśī tradition due to the fact that they have not been included in the Nāṭyaśāstra. It is interesting that Kohala has decreed that these uparūpakas are also to be understood as part of nāṭya. It is a generally accepted theory that what Bharata has not spoken of, will not be included under the head of nāṭya. But Bharata himself has spoken of nāṭikā which is an off-shoot having the combined characteristics of nāṭaka and prakaraṇa. This in itself serves as an indication that even in the time of Bharata, there were forms outside the framework of daśarūpakas which were also included under the purview of nāṭya. Bharata however has chosen not to delve into any of these. Abhinava, in this context mentions a canonic statement of Kohala’s (‘kohalastu bravīti’) where Kohala rather authoritatively states that the minor dramatic forms such as toṭaka etc. are also to be put under the head of nāṭya (ref.para 2.3.4.1). This statement would dispel the notion that uparūpakas belonged to the deśī tradition. It is interesting to note that while Abhinava allows forms such as toṭaka, prakaraṇikā, rāsaka etc, to be included in the daśarūpaka system on the authority of Kohala, he also states that forms like ḍombikā, prasthāna, ṣidgaka, bhāṇaka, bhāṇikā and rāgakāvya cannot be. This goes to show that even at the time of Abhinavagupta, there existed some minor forms which could be classified under nāṭya and some that could not. Thus this is evidence for the parallel existence for different dramatic systems and their overlapping nature.

Besides, in the deśī tradition, the performance was non-dramatic in content, as learnt from the Nartanādhyāya of Saṅgītaratnākara, which perhaps could not be said of Uparūpakas. On the contrary, uparūpakas were also perhaps a part and parcel of the mārga (nāṭya) tradition. Since all the characteristics of uparūpakas were already included in the daśarūpakas and also because they were born out of the mutual permutations and combinations of the daśarūpakas, perhaps Bharata felt no need to make a separate mention of the uparūpakas. Another point worth noting is that by the time of Bharata himself, the concept of uparūpakas was fairly well standardized and it would be wrong to assume that the uparūpakas were formulated after the time of Bharata. It is likely that they were much in vogue, even in Bharata’s time, but as discussed above Bharata chooses to be silent on these subjects. 

On the subject of nṛtya, Abhinava refers to Kohala on the inclusion of abhinaya in tāṇḍava, sāmānyābhinaya, citrābhinaya, nikuṭṭaka karaṇa, inclusion of adhika hastas in asamyuta hastas. Here again, it is clear that all the subjects spoken of by Kohala are supplementary to what Bharata has said and therefore, would fall under mārga.

Musical references to Kohala in Abhinavabhāratī are many. Most of these pertain to the aspect of rhythm. Abhinava mentions Kohala several times while he speaks about specific gaits to be followed in specific rasas (ref.para 2.1.14). Some of these are subhadrā, nartanaka, jambhaṭikā, dhārā, khaṇḍa-dhārā, khañjaka, helā, vilambitā and ullāsanā. In this context, though Bharata does not give any names or definitions of layas, Abhinava mentions the ones that Kohala has prescribed. But Abhinava too does not give the lakṣaṇas for any of these. The editor of the GOS edition of Abhinavabhāratī, M. R. Kavi supplies the definitions of these as footnotes. From Kavi’s notes, it is gathered that these gaits would follow some of the bhaṅga tālas. M. R. Kavi does not mention the source from where he has obtained these quotations of Kohala, but similar ones have been found in the yet unpublished manuscript of Nānyadeva’s Bharatabhāṣyam^[2]. But the name of Kohala does not appear anywhere in this manuscript. Therefore, M. R. Kavi must have had yet another source which described in detail lakṣaṇas of all the bhaṅga tālas according to the views of Kohala. 

Kohala is also called upon by Abhinava, when he discusses the subject of prastāra (ref.para 2.1.15). Though Bharata himself speaks of prastāra, he restricts himself to the metrical aspects described in the pāṭhyavidhāna. He does not deal with prastāra in the aspect of tāla. On the contrary, Abhinava suggests that Kohala has followed a process of prastāra (bhaṅga) for tālas also, the result of which are the tālas, some of which have been discussed in the paragraph above. Therefore it appears that Kohala has been aware of a system of prastāra in the case of tāla and its aṅgas, a process which Bharata has completely ignored. Here too, the tālas in question are mārga tālas and not deśī. The process of performing prastāra on deśī tālas can be seen from the time of works like Saṅgītaratnākara. But it is to be borne in mind that the deśī system of prastāra was different from that of mārga and Abhinava indicates that Kohala was one authority who had spoken of the same.

A complete view of all the subjects where Kohala has been referred to indicates that he (Kohala) has tread only in the path of the mārga tradition. And even in the case of uparūpakas, which are not a part of the Bharata-tradition, Kohala seems to have viewed some of these as a part and parcel of nāṭya. Therefore it does appear that the Kohala who Abhinava presents, might have written on subjects pertaining to that of the mārga tradition. Further, he (Kohala) seems to have written a work which dealt with all the aspects which Bharata spoke of, and in addition which also included those that he (Bharata) had left out, adding strength to Bharata’s prophetic words ‘Śeṣamuttaratantreṇa kohalastu kariṣyati’^[3].

1 Personality of Kohala  

Abhinavagupta paints a rather vivid picture about the personality of Kohala through his various references. Apart from the fact that Kohala was a revered authority on nāṭya, Abhinava also potrays him as an excellent actor (naṭa)^[4] and a nṛttācārya^[5]. 

The words of Abhinava also indicate that Kohala was a master of several śāstras:

कोहलादिभिरिति । तत्प्रधानैः सर्वशास्त्रनिबन्धनदर्शनमितिहासपुराणार्थवादकार्यचित्रपुस्तलेपादिभिः ।

kohalādibhiriti | tatpradhānaiḥ sarvaśāstranibandhanadarśanamitihāsapurāṇārthavādakāryacitrapustalepādibhiḥ |

—Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2006: GOS Vol. IV: p.518

His popularity was such that, Abhinava says that Kohala and Kāśyapa have been called upon time and again, since their views were very popular in lakṣya^[6]. The extent of popularity that Kohala enjoyed, is made more clear by the Audbhaṭṭas who claim that the śloka containing the saṅgraha of Nāṭyaśāstra was one of Kohala’s and not Bharata’s. This would mean that this verse of Kohala has found its way into the mūla text of Nāṭyaśāstra. There are other instances also of interpolations of Kohala’s work into Nāṭyaśāstra^[7]. The above facts make it clear that, even at the time of Bharata, Kohala was a greatly venerated authority whose views were extremely popular in the field of lakṣya as well as lakṣaṇa. By the time of Abhinavagupta, the Nāṭyaśāstra had acquired such a sway over the practitioners and theorists of nāṭya, that other works, perhaps inclusive of the valuable work of Kohala, were pushed to the background. This is evident when Abhinava speaks of the varieties of citrābhinaya^[8]. Here he indicates that there is a tradition about which Bharata remains silent, but Kohala speaks in much detail. He also mentions that he (Abhinava) would explain Kohala’s views in his own words, in order to protect a dying tradition. The mention of Kohala’s tradition of citrābhinayas in such a manner, suggests that Kohala’s traditions had been over-shadowed (by Bharata) by the time of Abhinava and he (Abhinava) is taking an extra step in order to safeguard these traditions from complete oblivion.

2 References to Kohala in Abhinavabhāratī 

It is interesting to note that in spite of shedding light on so many aspects relating to Kohala, Abhinavagupta does not mention the title of his work. However, he does indirectly give us some hints as to the nature of Kohala’s work through the various references. 

These references are of different types:

i. Direct quotations: Abhinavagupta gives direct quotations from the work of Kohala, on a few topics such as sāmānyābhinaya, vīthī, viṣkambhaka, arthopakṣepaka, dvipadi, rāgakāvya, tāṇḍava and nikuṭṭanam. It is seen that the quotations are all in verse form, albeit in different metres. This might suggest that Kohala’s work was in the form of verse, but this cannot be said conclusively as there could very well have been explanatory passages in prose, just like the Nāṭyaśāstra. 

ii. References calling on Kohala for support: Abhinava cites statements like ‘Kohalastu bravīti’ in order to indicate the authoritative application of a particular theory/rule.

iii. Non-subject related references: There are some references in Abhinavabhāratī which do not speak of any aspect of nāṭya in particular, but instead refer to personality and other details of Kohala. For example, in the beginning of chapter two, Abhinavagupta refers to Kohala as an exemplary naṭa. There are also some instances where the discussion is moving on certain lines and suddenly Abhinava refers to Kohala in a completely different context. For instance, in the 29th chapter, while speaking on a subject related to jāti, Abhinava at a certain point refers to Kohala, citing that his name has been used several times in order to gather more support / acclaim to his theories. 

iv. Reference where Kohala’s views are rejected: In all the references to Kohala that occur in Abhinavabhāratī, there is one instance where Abhinava refutes Kohala’s views and asserts that Bharata’s opinion is the correct one. In the 18th chapter, Abhinava mentions that Kohala prescribes the use of kaiśikī vṛtti for śṛṅgāra, hāsya and karuṇā rasas. Abhinava, in no uncertain terms refutes this statement and says that only the bhāratī vṛtti, prescribed by Bharata is to be used. 

v. Subject related references: Most of the references would belong to this category, wherein Abhinavagupta calls on Kohala to support or supplement his arguments.

On a comparison of the Kohala potrayed in Datillam and Bṛhaddeśī on one hand and Abhinavabhāratī on the other, it can be noticed that there are simply no common references amongst these works. Datillam refers to Kohala on the subject of tāla alone (in particular, the uttara / pañcapāṇi tāla). Bṛhaddeśī refers to Kohala on the subjects of śruti, svara and mūrcchanā. Abhinavabhāratī does discuss all the above mentioned topics, but yet does not deem fit to quote any of those references in his work. In particular, the verse quoted in Bṛhaddeśī describing the number of śrutis appears to have been quite popular in that, several lakṣaṇagranthas including Saṅgītasamayasāra, Saṅgītasārāmṛta etc. quote the same. Therefore it appears a little strange that this verse which appears in Bṛhaddeśī, just two centuries before the advent of Abhinavabhāratī, does not find mention in Abhinavabhāratī. This could suggest that the work of Kohala used by Mataṅga and that used by Abhinavagupta, were two different ones. Nevertheless, the subjects dealt by the Kohala, as met with in the citations in Abhinavabhāratī, are those which Bharata also delineates and therefore it is possible that this Kohala was the contemporary of Bharata.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Nrttaratnāvalis: 1965: Intro: p.118

[2]:

Bharatabhāṣyam: GOML: Acc. No. R20159/ SR5631

[3]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2006: GOS Vol. IV: V.37.18: p.517

[4]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 1992: GOS Vol. I: p.47

[5]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2001: GOS Vol. II: p.26

[6]:

Ibid.: p.70

[7]:

At the end of the fifth chapter there are around forty verses which give additional information about the pusrvaraṅga-vidhāna. This set is believed to be the work of Kohala.

[8]:

Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni: 2003: GOS Vol. III: p. 287