Part 8 - Citations of Kohala in the Bhāvaprakāśana

Bhāvaprakāśana (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’s optional rule of patāka in nāṭya the definition of bhāṇa according to Kohala (ref.para 2.3.4.4), the optional usage of lāsyaṅgas in vīthi and the number of acts (two) in utsṛṣṭikāṅka (ref.para 2.3.4.3)—are 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 vṛtti, pūrvaraṅga etc.) are not to be found in Bhāva-prakāśana and similarly, some that are discussed in Bhāvaprakāśana (sandhi, bindu etc.) are not found in Abhinavabhāratī. Furthermore, though there are common subjects like aṅka and vīthi which are discussed both in Abhinavabhāratī and Bhāvaprakāśaṇa, 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 Śāradātanaya possessed were one and the same. Further, it can be noticed that all the subjects that Kohala is referred to relate to the mārga tradition. According to the views of Yadugiri Yatirāja Swami^[1], Śāradātanaya has perhaps referred to Kohala only in the instances where he differs from Bharata.

By the time of Abhinavabhāratī, a relationship between Kohala and the system of uparūpakas had already evolved as is seen from references in his work. In this light, the fact that Bhāva-prakāśana, which was a post-Abhinavabhāratī work, not containing any references of/to Kohala in the context of uparūpakas, inspite of having a whole chapter (9th chapter) dedicated to the subject, seems a little strange. But it should be borne in mind that, Śāradātanaya’s delineation of the subject of uparūpakas is much on the same lines as Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and many verses found herein are repeated in the Bhāvaprakāśana verbatim. And, Bhoja does not mention Kohala or for that matter, any other authority to whom he refers to on the subject of the uparūpakas. Therefore, Śāradātanaya might not have felt the need to quote/ refer to Kohala.

Post Abhinavabhāratī, there are only a few works that collectively deal with all three subjects—gīta, nṛtya and nāṭya. More often than not, we find works dedicated to just one of these. However, works on saṅgīta are seen to contain information about both gīta and nṛtya. Bhāvaprakāśana belongs to the first category, where a detailed treatment of the aspect of nāṭya is found and the aspects of gīta and nṛtya left untouched. But evidently, Śāradātanaya 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 Śāradātanaya were different. A comparison of Bhāvaprakāśana with works prior to Abhinavabhāratī does not yield any results due to the fact that works like Dattilam and Bṛhaddeśi do not speak of nāṭya and Bhāva-prakāśana does not speak about nṛtya. Therefore, even in the event that Mataṅga or Dattila or both had the same work of Kohala that Śāradātanayā 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]:

Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya: 1968: p.32