1. Natya Nrtta and Nrtya Their Meaning and Relation Varma K.M

Page 1

NATYA

NRTTA

AND

NRTYA

THEIR

MEANING

AND

RELATION

VARMA

Page 2

NATYA

NRTTA

AND

NRTYA

THEIR

MEANING

AND

RELATION

VARMA

Page 4

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA

Their Meaning and Relation

Page 6

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA

THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

K. M. VARMA

ORIENT LONGMANS

BOMBAY * CALCUTTA * MADRAS

Page 7

ORIENT LONGMANS PRIVATE LTD

17 CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, CALCUTTA 13

NIOOL ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, BOMBAY 1

36A MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS 2

NKANSO HOUSE, 24/1 ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 1

GUNFOUNDRY ROAD, HYDERABAD 1

17 NAZIMUDDIN ROAD, DACCA

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO LTD

6 & 7 CLIFFORD STREET, LONDON W I

AND AT

NEW YORK, TORONTO, CAPE TOWN AND MELBOURNE

First Published November 1957

This book is Copyright. No portion of

it may be reproduced by any process

without permission.

PRINTED BY S. C. GHOSE, AT THE CALCUTTA PRESS

PRIVATE LTD., 1, WELLINGTON SQUARE, CALCUTTA

Page 8

Dedicated

SISIRDA

Page 10

CONTENTS

Page

Abbreviations

Preface

Introduction

Medieval Concept

The Medieval Concept Examined

Some Views about the Origin and Relation

Abhinava's Views on the Meaning of Abhinaya

Abhinava's Views on the Origin and Classification of Nṛtta

The Origin of Nṛtta

The Origin of Nāṭya

The Origin of Nṛtya

Earliest Known Theories:

Nāṭya, 45; Nṛtta, 53; Nṛtya, 67

Their Relations Discussed

Are these Definitions applicable to all the Prevailing Arts ?

Index

Page 12

ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOKS

REFERRED TO IN THE FOOTNOTES

Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini.

A.A.I.

The Art and Architecture of India, Benjamin Rowland, Penguin Books, 1st ed., 3rd imp., 1954.

A.B.

Abhinava-Bhārati, a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 1st ed., Vol. I, 1926, Vol. II, 1934, Baroda.

A.K.

Amarakośa, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. XXXVIII, Trivandrum, 1914.

A.S.

'Amarāvatī Sculptures in the Madras Govt. Museum', C. Śivarāma Murti, Bulletin of the Madras Govt. Museum, New Series, General Section, Vol. IV, Madras, 1942.

Bht.

Barhut, Benimādhab Barua, Fine Arts Series no. III, Indian Research Institute, Calcutta, 1937.

B.K.

Bharatakośa, compiled by M. Rāmakrishna Kavi, Śrī Venkateśvara Oriental Series, no. 30, Tirupati, 1951.

B.P.

Bhāvaprakāśa, Śāradātanaya, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, no. XLV, Baroda, 1930.

D.R.

Daśarūpaka, Dhananjaya, 5th ed., Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, Bombay, 1941.

E.T. of N.Ś.

English Translation of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Vol. I, Dr. Manomohana Ghosh, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1950.

H.S.P.

History of Sanskrit Poetics, Sushil Kumar De, Vol. I, 1923, Vol. II, 1925, Luzac, London.

M.B.

Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, Rajasthan Sanskrit College Series, Banaras.

M.G.

The Mirror of Gesture, Ānanda K. Coomāraswāmy and Duggirāla Gopālakrishṇayya, E. Weyhe, New York, 1936.

M.S.

The Monuments of Sanchi, Vol. II, Sir John Marshall, A. Foucher and N. C. Majumdar.

N.Ś.

Nāṭyaśāstra, Bharata, unless specified, references are always given from Gaekwad's Oriental Series edition, Vol. I, 1926, Vol. II, 1934, (1st ed.), Baroda.

Chowkhambā ed., Banaras, 1929.

Bombay ed., 2nd ed., Kāvyamālā no. 42, Bombay, 1943.

P.R.

Pratāparudrīya, Vidyānātha, 2nd ed., Bālamanoramā Press, Madras, 1931.

S.D.

The Sanskrit Drama, A. Berriedale Keith, Oxford, 1924.

Page 13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.E.D. Sanskrit English Dictionary, Monier M. Williams, Oxford, 1899, Lithoprint, 1951.

S.K. Siddhānta-kaumudī, Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, 8th ed., Bombay, 1942.

S.R. Sangītaratnākara, Śārṅgadeva, with two commentaries, Sudhākara of Siṅgabhūpāla and Kalānidhi of Kallinātha, Vol. IV, Adyar Library, 1953.

S. Rāja Sangītarāja, Mahārāṇā Kumbha, Vol. I, Gaṅgā Oriental Series no. 4, Anup Sanskrit Library, Bikaner, 1946.

S.R. V-f. Sanskrit Roots, Verb-forms, W. D. Whitney, Leipzig, 1885, and Lithoprint, Edwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1950.

T.S.D. The Types of Sanskrit Drama, D. R. Mankad, Ūrmi Prakāshan Mandir, Denso Hall, Karachi, 1936.

Page 14

PREFACE

IN the following pages I have attempted a brief examination of certain aspects of the arts of nāṭya, nṛtta and nṛtya. Interest in the Indian arts is on the increase, and those who care for the deeper values of life should not be afraid of revaluing reputations, old and new, if the Indian Renaissance is to be anything more than a passing phase, nor mind a little excursus in the region of theory. That responsibility none can, nor should, escape.

The few words that are necessary here are not intended to crave the reader’s pardon for the blemishes, if any, in what follows; nor are they meant to cajole him into sharing the views and conclusions of the author without question. Reasonable differences of opinion are always welcome.

I should like to state briefly the idea or ideas which have been uppermost in my mind when this work was undertaken. The day, when those who want to study the theory of Indian arts from Sanskrit sources can easily do so without struggling with textual problems, has not yet come. Yet it seems that in modern times much attention is being paid to the literary aspect of theories of arts in India. By contrast the question of the art form is quite neglected. Too much philosophizing is another constant feature. Art has its own philosophy and appeal. Ignoring them, we have cultivated the habit of reading in them our pet philosophies. Thanks to all this, the results of the study have failed to become living, that is, they have not reached the various levels of society. Incompetent writings are on the increase, supported by the glamour surrounding certain names. No wonder the intelligent understanding of the arts suffers. So far as practice of the arts goes, the commercial elements are very rapidly changing the classical spirit by the argument that change is inevitable and an indication of dynamism. This philosophy of change may in some cases be true, but in our particular context it is little better than an excuse. The decline of discrimination is lamentable, and ought to be resisted by all who care for aesthetic values.

In the author’s opinion, these are tendencies that should be got rid

Page 15

xii

PREFACE

of at the earliest. With this view an exploratory attempt has been made in the limited field of definitions and relations of nāṭya, nṛtta and nṛtya in such a manner that the contents of the work might reach the cultured reader who is not a specialist in the theory as found in Sanskrit. The insistence on certain clarifications may not be necessary for a specialist. From this point of view it might be said that the treatment is not scholastic. To this view I cannot agree.

On the other hand, if the cultured, but not specialist reader feels uneasy owing to certain textual details, briefly presented here, that will need looking into. But he too should not expect that he can acquire sound knowledge without being prepared to undergo some labour. Art, also, has its own austerities. If, however, he feels that this work is not meant for him, that is a pity, for the work was undertaken with the hope that it might serve the growing need of the day.

Turning to the task of thanking my mentors, friends and well-wishers, I must first mention that it was due to the pure love for learning and śiṣya-vātsalya of the late Dr. P. C. Bagchi, Vice-Chancellor and Director of Research Studies of Visva-Bharati, that I had the opportunity of working as a Research Scholar. The present book is concerned with only one of the subjects on which I have been working for some years now. I am extremely sad that I was not able to complete the work during Dr. Bagchi’s lifetime. Still I sincerely believe that this will please his pañca skandhas in whatever composition they may now be.

Dr. Sisirkumar Ghose of Santiniketan, to whom this small book is dedicated as a token of gratitude, has been one of my genuine well-wishers all through. I have learnt from him several things, including English; thus he is my teacher too. But for his unreserved help, this work might not have reached its present shape.

Mr. Roy North of Orient Longmans, formerly Professor of English, Visva-Bharati, has not spared pains to attend to details through every stage of production. For this I shall always be indebted to him.

Sjt. Santideb Ghose of the Sangeeta-Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, was also kind enough to render me his help and advice and I am grateful to him. My thanks are also due to Mr. P. S. N. Raju who went through the typescript. I am also thankful to Mrs. Barwell

Page 16

PREFACE

xiii

and other friends whose sympathies were available to me. Last but

not least I owe much to the staff of Orient Longmans Private Ltd.,

Calcutta, for the care with which they have looked after its publica-

tion.

K. M. VARMA

Santiniketan

Vijayadaśamī, Āśvayuja,

Śakābda 1879.

Page 18

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA:

THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

INTRODUCTION

THESE days the meaning of the arts of nāṭya (drama), nṛtta (dance) and nṛtya1 is so uncertain depending largely on the bias and vagary of the individual critic. This makes it rather difficult, if not impossible, to present the many views that are battling for acceptance. But, broadly speaking, and keeping in view those few who have a knowledge, of some kind or other, of Indian aesthetic theories, if one has to mention the prevalent theory or belief it would be as follows: nṛtta is devoid of either rasa or bhāva and is based on sheer physical gestures and movements supported by the tempo (or laya and tāla), while nāṭya and nṛtya convey rasa and bhāva respectively. This will explain the tendency, prevailing at least in some quarters, to look down upon nṛtta as an inferior form of art. This is a complete misconception, although based on some theories and definitions that came into vogue in medieval times. To these, therefore, we must now turn.

MEDIEVAL CONCEPT

FROM among the extant works on the subject the first brief account of theory that we come across is in Dhananjaya's Daśarūpaka. This is a work belonging to the tenth century A.D. This theory receives further elucidation from Dhanika who is supposed to be Dhananjaya's brother and is thus a younger contemporary. Hence it may not be unreasonable if no distinction is made between the author and his commentator while presenting this theory. Dhananjaya says:

1 As we shall see, nṛtya is a resultant art of the combination of dance and abhinayas, including vācika, (verbal communication) and thus a representational art. As such it cannot be properly translated by words like mimicry, pantomime, etc., as some have done. On our part we cannot give any exact equivalent in English. One may suggest representational dance or danse communicante or danse communicatrice.

Page 19

2 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

avasthānukṛtir nāṭyam

daśadhaiva rasāśrayam

anyad bhāvāśrayam nṛtyam

nṛttaṃ tāla-layāśrayam

ādyam padārthābhiyayo

mārgo deśī tathā param1

A separate explanation of the above definitions is not called for and we may give an explanation of it on the basis of Dhanika’s commentary. This is because the commentator does not obviously give anything which deviates from the author’s main ideas. Dhanika explains them in the following way: The word nāṭya is derived from the √naṭa meaning avaspandana i.e. quivering, and he further specifies avaspandana to be kiñcicalana2, slight or rather subtle movement. Since nāṭya needs subtle physical movement, its need for sāttvikābhinaya or the act of mental communication is greater. Nṛtya is derived from the √nṛt meaning gāntravikṣepa or ‘throwing’ the limbs i.e. to dance, and its performer is called nartaka. Nṛtya, as the world knows, is prekṣaṇīyaka, spectacular, whereas nāṭya is both spectacular and audible.3 Nāṭya has recourse to rasa (bliss that centres round a constant mood) i.e. rasa is expressed by means of nāṭya, (rasāśrayam nāṭyam) while nṛtya is the recourse to bhāva (mental mood or a given transitory mental condition), (nṛtyam bhāvāśrayam). Thus nāṭya which is (i) audio-visual, (ii) expressive of rasa, (iii) possessing abundantly the aspect of sāttvikābhinaya and (iv) having naṭa as its performer differs in four points from nṛtya which is (i) spectacular, (ii) expressive of bhāva, (iii) possessing abundantly āṅgikābhinaya (the act of physical communication) and

1 D. R., Ch. I, verses 7 and 9, pp. 2-3.

2 The meaning of this root is read variously in different places. In the dhātupāṭha given as an appendix to the particular edition of S. K., which is used here, avasyandana is found (p. 745) as its meaning while in the body of the text avaskandana (p. 418). But in the Bālamaromā edition (Madras, 1929) of the S.K. it is found as avaspandana (Vol. II, p. 868) like in the D. R. Such a variation is also found elsewhere and thus it deserves a separate investigation.

3 Dhanika says regarding nṛtya only that ‘loke’pi cātra prekṣaṇīyaka miti vyavahārāt’. By this, it seems, that he means that it is not audible. Following this we have added in our explanation that nāṭya is both to be heard and seen.

Page 20

MEDIEVAL CONCEPT

(iv) having nartaka as its performer.1 A point of agreement between them may also be noted, namely anukāra or anukrti, meaning representation. That is to say, both of them represent something, so they are representational. This is what Dhanika says in the main regarding nātya and nrtya.

This description of nātya and nrtya as rasāśraya and bhāvāśraya respectively is elaborated or rather put into other words by Dhanika in the following manner : nātya is vākyārthābhinayātmaka and nrtya is padārthābhinayātmaka. These compound words are very popular nowadays as vākyārthābhinayam nātyam and padārthābhinayam nrtyam. Quite often we are hearing discourses supposed to be based on the above phrases even from persons who cannot properly pronounce these words. Not only do they not know what is meant here by vākyārtha and padārtha, but they are also quite ignorant of the real significance of the word abhinaya. Fantastically enough, people generally understand abhinaya as facial expression or the movements of the facial muscles of expression alone, they do not realise that the movement in the main limbs is also a part of the total meaning. So it may not be entirely out of place, when popular misconceptions are taken into account, to explain these, however briefly. So far as abhinaya goes, it is interpreted in several ways. All these interpretations cannot, of course, be touched upon here, except to mention what abhinaya means according to Bharata’s theory as we understand it.

Abhinaya means an act of communication or to specify it, it is an act of the performer which is meant to communicate something. This act of communication is conditioned or determined by the human activity as a whole, the human activity which has its reference in everyday life. This is the fact which gives birth to variety in abhinaya. It has been customary in India from the good old ages to conceive or classify human activity as belonging to three categories, namely, mind, voice and body (mano-vāk-kāya). Our sāttvika, vācika and āngika abhinayas are respectively the result of

1Their derivation may not be counted as a fifth point of disagreement, because the purpose of stressing derivation here is to have a clear idea about what particular abhinaya plays a greater role in a given art and the difference caused by a necessity of given abhinaya is already counted. This is the trend that is followed or can be noticed in the commentary.

Page 21

4 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

this threefold division of human activity. There are certain other things which do not come under innate human activities. These are dress, ornaments, and so on. From the practical point of view, i.e. from the point of view of communication, they are useful in the dramaturgic art, so they are looked upon as a fourth activity. This is indicated by naming it āhārya, 'owned' or to put it literally, 'borrowed'. Therefore, abhinaya does not cover the movement of the face or feet alone, but the whole human activity. This little clarification about abhinaya will do for the present and should help to remove ambiguity in discussion.

Let us now turn to the vākyārtha and padārtha. Literally, they connote 'meaning of sentence and meaning of words.' But this literal meaning does not clarify all that is to be known about them. In Indian aesthetic theory bhāvas are said to contribute to rasa both in a general and an auxiliary way (sāmānya-guna-yogena). The relation between bhāva and rasa has been explained in some ages on the analogy of the relation of the meaning of a word to that of the sentence. So, in a context like this, vākyārtha and padārtha do not denote simply their literal sense (i.e. meaning of sentence and meaning of words). In fact, what they mean is that vākyārtha stands for rasa which is similar to the meaning of a sentence and padārtha stands for bhāvas which are similar to word meaning. Thus the words vākyārthābhinaya and padārthābhinaya on the one hand and rasābhinaya and bhāvābhinaya on the other, are similar usages. In this theory nrtya can never be called vākyārthābhinayātmaka because it is, according to this very theory, confined to express only bhāva which is analogous to padārtha. Similarly, nātya can never be called padārthābhinayātmaka because bhāvas which are analogous to padārthas, as such will not figure in it and they will merge in rasa which is analogous to vākyārtha.

This assumption that nrtya and nātya are respectively expressive of only bhāvas and rasa, has helped the theorists to determine the difference between nrtya and nātya. In this connection Dhanika lays stress on this point by saying that although both nātya and nrtya are representational, yet nātya which is vākyārthābhinayātmaka is quite different from the nrtya which is pādārthābhinayātmaka just as nrtya is different from nrtta because of its representational character (anukārāmakatva) which the latter lacks, although both

Page 22

of them are identical in so far as aṅgavikṣepa (lit. throwing limbs) is a common factor.

Aṅgavikṣepa, we notice, according to these theorists is a common feature between nṛtya and nṛtta. This aṅgavikṣepa the theorists all along consider to be the main or sole feature that nṛtta ever had. Of course they qualify it and then this feature together with its qualifications becomes the definition of nṛtta. Dhanika says that nṛtta is aṅgavikṣepa wanting in only laya and tāla (i.e. simply following tempo) and devoid of abhinaya (abhinayaśūnya). Here abhinayaśūnya ultimately means that it is devoid of rasa. If so, nṛtta according to these theorists is a mere physical movement devoid of rasa but regularised by tempo.

The authors of this theory mention also the other names of nṛtya and nṛtta, names which were popular or widely known (prasiddha) in their times or even before. They refer to nṛtya as mārga, classical, and nṛtta as deśī, popular.1 This presupposes certain principles and conditions only by means of which is the classification possible. But for reasons unknown they do not clarify this point.

With regard to the utility or purpose of nṛtya and nṛtta they mention that in nāṭya nṛtya is sometimes useful in expressing bhāva introduced through the topic (avāntarapadārtha) while nṛtta is useful as a beautifying factor (sobhāhetutvena).2 This is stated because of the attempt they make to explain nāṭya or certain aspects of it in a concise form. What is a point of interest here to us, for the present, is not their intention (whatever it may be), but the description of nṛtta as śobhahetu. What precisely they mean by śobhā and how that śobhā is brought into nāṭya, on both these points they are equally silent. But it is clear that by śobhā they mean something other than rasa and bhāva which nāṭya and nṛtya are said to possess respectively. So we may conclude that śobhā here means that which pleases the eye.

Thus, according to this theory, nāṭya is expressive of rasa, nṛtya is expressive of bhāva and nṛtta is that which causes beauty perceived by the eye.

This is all that these theorists have to say with regard to the nature

1 This term is sometimes translated as ‘folk’. But the word deśī covers a much wider meaning than the word folk. Further, it is also not a proper word.

2 See D.R., Ch. I, verse 10 and also Commentary, p. 3.

Page 23

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

of the three arts as well as the difference existing among them.

This theory, it is true, we have from Dhananjaya and Dhanika, but

a host of earlier works have been lost and the theory may not be,

in a proprietary sense, theirs.

This conclusion seems plausible when the fact that these authors

are trying to present existing theories in a concise form is kept in

mind. Further, with regard to the distinction between natya and

nrtya, the word angaviksepa is used in Harsa's vartika quoted by

Abhinava and Amarasimha, earliest of the known lexicographers,

who mentions angaviksepa as synonymous with angahara.1 From

these it may be inferred that it is likely that this kind of concept,

though not perhaps of the same wording, was current from quite

earlier centuries. Nevertheless, no definite date or period for the

beginnings of this concept can, in the present circumstances, be

fixed.

In the period following Dhananjaya and Dhanika this theory

does not lose its ground. It has held its position even to the present

day. Later writers, like Vidyanatha, follow Dasarupaka in this

matter.2 There is no reason to assume that the later writers get

this theory from sources earlier than the Dasarupaka. On the con-

trary, it is quite evident from their writings that for the theory they

are indebted to Dasarupaka itself. The virtue of this theory is not

by itself the sole reason for its popularity. Generally speaking, the

age after the tenth century A.D., as S. K. De rightly points out,3

was one in which many text-books were written on the subject of

aesthetics. One can refer to Dhananjaya's own words in order to

point out that Dasarupaka itself is nothing but a text-book4 and

it is quite popular even now. This is the case with the works, like

Prataparudriya and others, which in many matters follow Dasarupaka

1 See A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 172; A.K., Kanda I, Natyavarga, Sl. 16 (Vol. I,

p. 145).

2 See P.R., p. 72. Depending on K. P. Trivedi's edition of this work, D. R.

Mankad notes that Vidyanatha thinks nrtta to be bhavavisraya and nrtya talalayasraya.

Even without support from any MS. this could have been amended in the light

of D.R., but Mankad does not do so. The edition we have used reads it

exactly as D.R. does. So Mankad's conclusion needs revision. See T.S.D.,

pp. 13-14.

3 See H.S.P., Vol. II, p. 270 et seq.

4 See D.R., Ch. I, pp. 1-2

Page 24

THE MEDIEVAL CONCEPT EXAMINED

as well as borrow from it. To some extent, the popularity of these

books is the factor by which this theory, as it is, could find favour

even up to the present time in spite of some endeavour to modify

it even several centuries back. As we shall note, some authors,

for instance Mahārāṇā Kumbha, Vipradāsa, are not content with

some points in this theory and while agreeing with the theorists in

general they at the same time amend it. Nevertheless, this theory,

as a whole, is never totally abandoned. If one were to note the

minute differences of various authors, a good number of quasi-

theories could be recorded, though such differences may not be

always quite significant. These subsidiary theories require a separate

investigation, which does not come within the scope of our present

endeavour, since we intend to deal with only the important develop-

ment of the theory of the arts — nāṭya, nrtta and nrtya.

THE MEDIEVAL CONCEPT EXAMINED

ALTHOUGH this theory contains several points which are neither

untrue nor to be denied, yet the way they have been put forward is

certainly defective. As a result these definitions or even this theory in

its total form have become quite misleading. For instance, these

theorists, as pointed out already, tend to think of nrtta as devoid

of rasa and bhāva. This is obvious from their expression [tan (laya-

tāla) mātrāpekṣo'nga-vikṣepo'bhinaya-śūnyah]. Following them, later

writers have put it in indisputable words: rasa-bhāva-vinirm̥-

tu nrtta mityabhidhīyate.1 Following the fashion of the well-known

qualitative classification of kāvya, poem, some critics have designated

nrtta as adhama, inferior among these three.

Such expressions unmistakably reveal the attitude, if not the

understanding, of medieval authors towards nrtta. Though it may

not be an act of open contempt, it surely amounts to a looking

down upon nrtta and lowering its virtues. This calls for serious

refutation. In reality nrtta is an art par excellence, it gives birth to

nrtya and above all inspires the early sculptures of India, educating

them in the geometrical quantities, quanties which distinguish Indian

sculpture throughout the ages that followed. If it cannot evoke

rasa in the hearts of spectators, then why are people so fascinated

1 Bharatakalpalatā as quoted in B.K., p. 875.

Page 25

to see its performance? Is it to please their eyes looking at the sobhā, and is this sobhā similar to that of a flower in nature or is it similar to some decoration? The act of looking down upon nrtta would be, as it no doubt was, a result of a wrong view of what sobhā means.

The phrase angavikṣepa is not selective, if not unworthy, to give the proper idea of nrtta. As we have already noted Amarasimha lists angavikṣepa and angahāra as synonyms. Being a lexicographer he might have copied it from earlier sources. Whatever may be the reasons for this kind of description of nrtta and angahāra, the √kṣip prefixed by vi literally never gives the meaning of well thought out and composed limbs of the body, and medieval theorists, with perhaps few exceptions, do not try through their definitions to give this meaning to the word.

Abhinava once utilises this word and says that angavikṣepa means gracefully composed limbs or graceful composition of limbs, (gātrāṇām vilāsena kṣepaḥ)1 and while interpreting thus, he thinks of it in terms of angahāras. This explanation is an act of adjustment, but hardly admissible. Angavikṣepa cannot convey the meaning of angahāra.

This is proved by the misunderstanding to which it has led. Although every writer repeats the phrase angahāra, yet no writer thinks in terms of angahāra while mentioning nrtta to be angavikṣepa. Therefore, each and every one of the later authors uses this word not in the sense in which Abhinava does.

In any case, such a meaning is not popularly known. With regard to rasa and bhāva in this theory as the distinguishing factors between nātya and nṛtya, the distinction is not precise.

Whether or not there is any bearing on the distinction between rasa-dhvani and bhāva-dhvani in this, it is difficult to say. It would be no wonder if the present distinction takes its origin before Ānandavardhana's exposition of dhvani in the eighth century A.D.

It is extremely difficult to suppose that the former is analogous to the latter. Whatever may be the truth regarding the relation of these two distinguishing factors, so far as nātya and nṛtya are concerned, they cannot be distinguished on the basis of rasa and bhāva.

In the ultimate sense there is no bhāva without rasa and vice versa, as Bharata puts it clearly: na bhāvahīno'sti raso na bhāvo rasavarjitaḥ.2 Even if we do not always think in terms of the

1 A.B., Vol. I, p. 21.

2 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 6, p. 294.

Page 26

ultimate sense and wish nrtya to be defined as bhāvāśraya on the

basis of other considerations, for example the stress, this theory

does not seem proper and precise. Let us suppose that a particular

theme is so treated that in it a particular bhāva gains supremacy

over the other things, that is, stands out in the spectator's mind.

When such themes are performed, nrtya may be called bhāvāśraya.

But there is no reason for restricting it to a performance of such

themes alone. When such a theme is performed with the help of

nrtya, it may become one variety of it, but it cannot be everything

and in fact it should not be such. By nrtya such a theme could as

well be performed in which what is solely expressed is a rasa.

Therefore, this definition is defective.

This has been felt by some, like Kumbha Rānā and Vipradāsa.

These later writers say that rasa is made to be manifested by nrtya

while bhāvas are accompanying it and similarly bhāva is made to

be manifested by nrtya while rasa is accompanying it. Both these

things are possible, and in either case it retains the name nrtya.

Thus, in order to distinguish them, they name the former variety

as nātya-nrtya and the latter as mārganrtya. At the same time

they retain and reserve the word deśi for nrtta, in the same fashion

as Dhananjaya and Dhanika do. Now they put these three in order

of uttama, superior; madhyama, ordinary; and adhama, inferior in

accordance with their merit, the merit as conceived by these

writers.1 In this explanation of these later writers the important

point is their acceptance of the fact that rasa may also be manifested

by nrtya.

We have seen that these, and generally all, medieval theorists

designate nrtya and nrtta respectively as mārga and deśi. That means

they are not ready to accept any kind of nrtta as mārga. But they

themselves say that an art that is created and popularised by Masters

is called mārga and an art that is practised by different people of

various regions in keeping with their taste is called deśi. In fact,

deśi art, which is nowadays called folk art, is also learnt from

the teachers and is governed by certain rules of its own. Then what

is the difference between them? In the deśi type of art science is

1 Kumbha Rānā and Vipradāsa as quoted in B.K., p. 875 and pp. 340-1

respectively.

Page 27

10 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

a part of it i.e. the artists as well the teachers are not conscious of it, so it is not studied separately from art. On the contrary, in the mārga type of art its science is a conscious study. When we look at the subject in this light, nrtta as expounded by Bharata must be called mārga. Bharata's treatment of nrtta proves it beyond any doubt. There are other types of prevailing nrttas which we touch upon later are logically and certainly to be called deśī. Therefore, the medieval theorists are again far from being correct.

But a still later writer, Vipradāsa, probably realized this inadequacy and gives a different explanation for the word mārga. (For reference see p. 9, footnote 1.) Depending only on some passages quoted by others it is difficult to reach any definite conclusions about the reasons which lead him to give a different explanation to this word. What he says is this. The word mārga means bhāva, so mārganrtya means nrtya which is exclusively confined to the evocation of bhāva. This, as mentioned earlier, is different from nātyanrtya which can evoke rasa too. But he is not able to give any separate explanation for the word deśī. In this matter he asks us to accept the designation of nrtta as deśī without questioning because ancient pandits say so. His explanation may hold good in case of the classification of nrtya as nātyanrtya and mārganrtya, but it leads nowhere in the case of designating nrtya and nrtta as mārga and deśī respectively. In fact, it is not known that mārga could mean bhāva. Probably he might have said this as a kind of extended meaning. Apart from this, mārga and deśī are inseparable and are together used as contraries. Thus there is no reason why one should always refer to nrtta, indiscriminately, as deśī.

Thus the medieval theory seen for the first time in Daśarūpaka fails not only in its definition of nrtta as mere angavikṣepa, but also by defining nātya and nrtya as rasāśraya and bhāvāśraya respectively. It proves that almost all of the later theories based, as they are, in one way or the other, on this Daśarūpaka theory, are bound to be misleading, at least in certain vital aspects. In that case there is a need to see if earlier theories cannot give us a better understanding of these arts.

Page 28

SOME VIEWS ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND RELATION II

SOME VIEWS ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND RELATION

For these we have to go back seven or eight centuries to the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata. There is no work of the period between the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra and Daśarūpaka available to us. The Nāṭyaśāstra, the earliest of the extant works on these arts, provides ample material for study and improved understanding of the problem. We should consider this text very carefully and to do that it is better to consider it separately from its later interpretations. Its only available commentary, Abhinavabhāratī, is by Abhinavagupta who lived at the end of the tenth and in the beginning of the eleventh centuries, that is, in the same age in which Dhananjaya and Dhanika lived. Abhinava occasionally quotes his predecessors, including Harṣa belonging to the seventh century A.D. Such short quotations, however, do not give us a comprehensive idea about the different views expressed in them and it is not possible to arrive at conclusions on their slender basis. They can only provide a vague or a faint idea about some of the views of those other commentators whose total works are, unfortunately, not available. But the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra undergoes some change, or changes, and also a vast development of the art of nrtya had taken place by the time those writers began to interpret the Nāṭyaśāstra in their own ways. It would be misleading to cometo conclusions by looking at it through the eyes of these commentators alone, however competent their exposition and criticism may be. This is not to deny their value. If and when their statements contain truth then they must be given due consideration. But modern scholarship, we are afraid, depends too much on Abhinava and explains everything that is said by him in the name of the Nāṭyaśāstra. This hampers us in tracing the real development, and our understanding, of the original thought. In order to save ourselves from this danger we should try to understand the Nāṭyaśāstra independently of the commentators.

Generally speaking, it is easy to trace the relation existing among things, provided we have clear ideas about them, that is, of their concept or definitions. Because of the place of the Nāṭyaśāstra in the evolution of these arts, it will be helpful in understanding the early concepts regarding these arts if the relationships are

Page 29

12 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

considered first. These relationships in their turn call for some

idea about the origin of the respective arts.

It is now generally accepted that the √nata is derived from the

√nrt, or the √nata is the prāḳtised form of Sanskrit √nrt. It is

thus noted in modern works, for instance, Whitney and Monier M.

Williams.1 According to the Vedic usages, it is also said that the √nṛt

is earlier than the √nata. Since both the roots are seen in Pāṇini, we

are to suppose that in the view of those who argue for the above

derivation, this process had taken place long before Pāṇini, it cannot

otherwise find a place in a grammatical work. Pāṇini reads it twice

in bhvādi, one of the ten groups of roots that he mentioned in his

grammar, with lingual n, while reading it in the curādi group of roots

with dental n. It is for the linguists to find out if this fact proves

anything. On the basis of linguistic conclusions like this, if people

try to deduce that nāṭya is derived from nrtta or nrtya, that would

be completely erroneous, because such derivations may prove how

the vocal organs of the people living in a given age worked, but

not more, like the concepts. It is a common practice that after a child

is born a name is selected and given to him; but no child will be

born because a name is there or selected. Similarly the birth of nāṭya is

expected to necessitate a name for itself. But the word nāṭya derived

from the √nata which even if itself is derived from the √nṛt, cannot

cause the birth of a thing, viz., nāṭya. There is every chance for nāṭya

to be born independently of nrtta, so, unless it is proved by other

material that nāṭya is born from nrtta, it is illogical to say that nāṭya

(not the word but the thing) is born or derived from nrtta. The

derivation of a word is an entirely different thing from the laws of

the origin of its meaning. In the concepts or definitions the etymo-

logical meaning alone would not suffice, even though it may in

most cases remain as a part of the whole concept or definition.

Therefore in the province of art these linguistic considerations, like

the derivations of words, even if they are established, have no value,

unless they are proved definitely to have a bearing on a given concept.

Till recently a section of scholars engaged in the studies of

Indology found everything of Indian culture to belong to the Aryan

race alone and faithfully indulged in seeking out relationships with

and borrowings from Greek culture. With such a biased attitude and

1 See S.R. V-f., p. 87; and S.E.D., p. 525.

Page 30

SOME VIEWS ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND RELATION

preconceived notions they naturally failed to see any other elements in it. And even those who did not suffer from the Aryan bias were not always in a position to utilise the non-Aryan sources. But now it is a growing and general contention that Indian culture, as a whole, is not the culture of one race or one tribe or of one section of the people, but it is essentially a culture that grew from the contributions of several peoples and it contains various elements in it. Not much progress in investigation has, however, been made on this new and obviously truer hypothesis, which means that we are still in the region of those old theories. In this connection it may not be in vain to investigate whether the √nata originally belonged to the non-Aryan group of the languages with a meaning similar to that recorded in the Dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini and which has been later incorporated into the Sanskrit. It is particularly necessary to take into consideration what are called the Dravidian languages while investigating some of these questions as the ones on which we are at present engaged. Without paying due and equal attention to those languages, it may be impossible, at least in some respects, to do justice to the arts in question. Some words like nikuṭṭana, vañcita, and so on, which are technically used in the Nāṭyaśāstra, lead to the impression that they originally belonged to the Dravidian languages. This seems probable in view of the frank tribute paid by Bharata to the people of South India, viz., tatra dākṣiṇātyās tāvad bahunṛtta-gīta-vādyāḥ kaiśikīprāyāś caturamadhura-lalitāngābhinayāś ca.1 Until these sources are also explored, the theory that the √nata is a prākṛtised form of Sanskrit √nṛt, need not be taken as a settled fact. Our contention is that in the province of arts linguistic theories will be of no value unless they are definitely proved to have a bearing on the concepts of given arts. Therefore, it is not wise to linger over knotty and inconclusive linguistic considerations to settle the question of the origin of nāṭya, when unmistakable concepts are there waiting for greater consideration. In fact, if these concepts are not reliable, there is no other way to trace the origin of these arts. In the case of nāṭya, the linguistic conclusions may or may not hold good while in the case of ṇṛtta and ṇṛtya, etymologically belonging to one and the same √nṛt, no such conclusions are possible. This means that we have

1 N.Ś., Vol. II, Ch. 13, p. 207.

Page 31

14 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

ultimately to depend on the concepts themselves. We can have concrete ideas about these three arts with the help of the Nāṭyaśāstra, in other words, the concrete concepts are available from the Nāṭyaśāstra. It is easy and helpful to have a definite knowledge of concepts and the possible conclusions drawn from them, in working out the ambiguous and remote problems like linguistic ones. So let us not mix up what is clear with the ambiguous and create needless perplexity. Our sole concern is with the concepts alone.

D.R. Mankad discusses at length in his book, The Types of Sanskrit Drama, the problems of the origin and evolution of these arts— nātya, nrtta and nrtya. His conclusion is: ‘From the point of view of evolution, first comes nrtta, then nrtya and last nātya. Nrtta is mere dance, nrtya had gesture added to it, while nātya had speech (i.e. dialogue) too. Thus nātya incorporated all the three features—dance, music and speech — which are so essential for the creation of drama.’1

To trace thus the evolution of these arts, he adopts abhinaya, theme, acts, number of actors, and so on, as means. With the help of these and the presumed order of these arts, Mankad reaches the conclusion regarding the development of uparūpakas, generally called nrtya, and the order of development of rūpakas, too, which are generally called nāṭya. All these details need not be presented here. Further, he traces the origin of some rūpakas from the uparūpakas. Although the elements like theme, acts, etc., may not be unmistakable proofs, yet they may be sometimes adopted as a means to trace the development and such is the popular method too. Nevertheless, Mankad’s way of dealing with the subject is unscientific. It is well known

that all the ten rūpakas are fully dealt with in the Nāṭyaśāstra which is generally assumed to belong to the second or the third century A.D. To develop rūpakas from one another, according to the process accepted by Mankad, takes some time and if some of them are to be developed from uparūpakas and to develop uparūpakas from one another among themselves it takes some more time. This means that the development of uparūpakas goes back much further, even if we allot a minimum possible time for this process, to the centuries that preceded the Christian era. But none among all the theoretical works that he utilises belongs to the period earlier than the tenth century A.D. None among the uparūpakas that he utilises for the

1 T.S.D., p. 22, and also p. 151, for the table.

Page 32

ABHINAVA ON THE MEANING OF ABHINAYA

same purpose can be assumed to be sufficiently older to support his

stand. He generally does not question the variations seen in those

later works and, moreover, takes them as indicative of the develop-

ment of the uparūpakas, the origin and evolution of which takes

place in B.C. times. Very unconvincingly he explains the silence of the

Nātyaśāstra with regard to nrtya or uparūpakas, by saying that there

was no necessity or occasion for it to discuss and define them.1

This does not really explain the fact. If there is no necessity for the

Nātyaśāstra to deal with them, what new necessity has arisen in the

case of later books which leave out many aspects of drama which

the Nātyaśāstra expounds in such detail? Mankad’s conclusion in

his book, The Types of Sanskrit Drama, cannot be accepted.

ABHINAVA’S VIEWS ON THE MEANING OF

ABHINAYA

BEFORE we take up the Nātyaśāstra for discussion, we might first

deal with Abhinava’s interpretation. This for two reasons: firstly,

because he discusses these matters at length, keeping in view the

development of these arts and also the many views prevailing in

his time and available to him; the second reason is that it is easy

to note to what extent contemporary thought influenced Abhi-

nava to interpret the relevant portions of the Nātyaśāstra in

a given way. In this place it is enough if his views on nrtta and

nrtya alone are noted. Even then, as our intention is not a study of

Abhinava with reference to nrtta and nrtya, the whole of his discus-

sion need not be presented here. We shall mention only those points

that are helpful in understanding his view on Bharata’s verses where

nrtta is dealt with and contain some kind of reference to nrtya.

It is easy to understand his classification of nrtta and its significance

when some of his basic ideas are clearly understood. In the foregoing

pages we have explained the concept of abhinaya to some extent.

Etymologically, it means ‘sending forth’ (prefix abhi, √nī and suf-

fix a = abhinaya). To elaborate, it is the act of sending forth the

things towards the persons who are spectators or both spectators

and audience. The latter part of this sentence, ‘towards spectators’,

means the consciousness of the spectators. Thus it means the

ibid., p. 102.

Page 33

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

performer's (abhinetr) act, which is intended to send forth the given things towards the consciousness of the persons who are spectators or both spectators and audience, that is, the performer's act of communication. This is the etymological meaning and also the concept of the word abhinaya that can be learnt from the Nātyaśāstra.1

For unspecified reasons Abhinava does not accept this well-known abhinaya in nrtta which, according to the Nātyaśāstra, is introduced for the first time by Bharata in the pūrvaranga on the instructions of Śiva. So it is a problem for him to interpret the word abhinaya in certain places which are unmistakably connected with pūrvaranga.2 In such places i.e. those connected with nrtta of pūrvaranga, Abhinava interprets it in a different way. He says that here abhinaya means the performer's bringing the meaning of the song into his own mind and moving the limbs in accordance with the general trend of the song without the intention of conveying every detail to spectators.3 It means that it is the performer's physical movement that follows the general trend of (the meaning of) the song owing to his contemplation on it without reference to the meanings of words and sentences of the song, contrary to the abhinaya described above which is meant to convey every detail of a song or a composition. Obviously he does all these twists basing on the √nīṅ=prāpaṇa, i.e. to send or to bring to. Thus in his opinion abhinaya is of two kinds. Hereafter we too shall mention in this work these two types of abhinaya as the first type and the second type of abhinaya respectively wherever there is a need to explain Abhinava's point of view.

ABHINAVA'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND CLASSIFICATION OF NRTTA

ANOTHER important thing that should be noted is that Abhinava accepts or rather finds in Bharata that among nrtta, gāna and vādyā

1 N.Ś., Vol. II, Ch. 8, pp. 1-2.

2 ibid., Vol. I, Ch. 4, verse 15, p. 90; verse 283, pp. 187-8, verse 290, p. 191, etc.

3 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 188, ll. 7-11; p. 177, ll. 9-10; p. 181, ll. 18-19; p. 179, ll. 17-21; p. 189, ll. 18-19. Apart from these, there are other references where the same note can be heard, such as: p. 187, l 11; p. 191, ll. 13-17;

Page 34

ABHINAVA ON THE ORIGIN AND CLASSIFICATION OF NRTTA

any particular one can be, according to the occasion, a primary

thing while the rest become accompaniments or auxiliaries.1 Since

we have noted these three facts — two types of abhinaya and the

relation among nrtta, gāna and vādya — on which Abhinava proceeds,

we may now see how he classifies nrtta:

First

group

( I. Śuddha-nrtta

Former

Page 35

These types acquired the names maśrna, uddhata, etc., owing to the fact that nrtta is utilised to perform the compositions which express the feelings which have either the soft or the bright quality. To explain it simply, if nrtta is utilised to perform such a composition which expresses the soft type of feeling, then nrtta gets the name maśrna, if it is vice versa, then nrtta receives the appellation uddhata and so on.1 If we are to refer to maśrna or sukumāra and uddhata in the terminology which is more familiar to us, they are the lāsya and the tāndava respectively. So much for the explanation of the principle that goes to make the second group of nrttas.

From this it is clear that the first group of three nrttas has no first type of the abhinaya. But, as its very name implies, the second variety of the first group has the second type of abhinaya (which, as we have already explained, is a different one from that of nātya). Now, if we come to the third variety of nrtta we find that Abhinava does not specifically mention anything about the question whether or not this variety possesses abhinaya of some kind or the other. But certain usages, (especially ‘bhrūtārāparispanda’, and others of its description, referred to on p. 17, footnote 2) lead us to assume that in his opinion this variety also possesses the second type of abhinaya, as the second variety does. If this assumption is correct, then the three nrttas of the first group can be again classified into two categories—those having no abhinaya of any kind and those having the second type of abhinaya. This is to say, the first variety of nrtta comes under the former category while the second and the third varieties of nrttas come under the latter category.

The significance of each variety of this seven-fold classification of nrtta may now, schematically, be put as follows:

Śuddha-nrtta is of angahāras and recakas or it is the one consisting of angahāras and recakas.
Gītakādyabhinayonmukha-nrtta is the one consisting of the physical movement guided by the song without the reference to the detail contained in it, but with reference to the general trend of the meaning owing to the performer’s contemplation of it. In other words, it is the nrtta that possesses our second type of abhinaya.

1 ibid. p. 184, ll. 16-17.

Page 36

ABHINAVA ON THE ORIGIN AND CLASSIFICATION OF NRTTA

Gānavādyatalānusāri-ntta is almost the same as the above,

which means that it also has the second type of abhinaya. But the

difference between them is this: in the case of the former it is the

leading factor while gīta accompanies it, that is, gīta works as an

auxiliary, whereas in the case of this third variety, it accompanies

(or it works as an auxiliary to) either gīta or vādya or else to both,

while these are leading factors.

Uddhata-nṛtta is the one which has abhinaya of the first type

i.e. abhinaya of nāṭya and which is used to perform the composition

expressing the bright type of feeling or, to put it more precisely,

the rasas, namely raudra, vīra and so on.

Maṣṇa-nṛtta is the same as the above with the exception that it

is used to perform the composition expressing the soft type of feeling

or, to put it precisely the rasas, namely śṛṅgāra, karuṇa and so on.

Miśroddhata-nṛtta (or Maṣṇamiśritoddhata-nṛtta) is, in the main,

the same as the uddhata variety, still it is not so pure as uddhata,but

mixed with some element of maṣṇa.

Miśramaṣṇa-nṛtta(or Uddhatamiśrita-maṣṇa-nṛtta) is, in the main,

the same as the maṣṇa variety. However it is not so pure as maṣṇa,

but mixed with some element of uddhata.

This is Abhinava’s classification and explanation of nṛtta.

So, Mankad has been mistaken not only while explaining

these seven varieties but also in concluding that the first variety

of the seven on the one hand and the second and third on the other,

are ‘the same as nṛtta and nṛtya;’ (of later ages, i.e. medieval concept).

Further, he erroneously says that this evolutionary distinction

(i.e. as Mankad himself tries to establish) is noticed by Abhinava

also.1 This is pure conjecture and need not detain us further.

As we have seen before, Abhinava does not accept that the three

varieties of the first group could have abhinaya of the sort which

nāṭya requires. None of the three of the former group, therefore,

can be equalled with nṛtya. The real nṛtya varieties, as already

mentioned, are the four varieties of the second group. He never

admits the second group of the nṛttas to be used in the pūrvaraṅga

and he is very careful to mend or twist some usages of Bharata in

order to say that the three nṛttas of the former group only can be used

1 See T.S.D., p. 16.

Page 37

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

in the pūrvaranga. Also he never admits of any kind of evolution among these seven varieties. As we have mentioned before he thinks of Śiva himself being responsible for the creation of all these seven, saying evamidam nṛttam saptakṛtiprakārair bhagavata eva praṣṭtam.1

Amazingly enough, he also thinks of Bharata as the person responsible for the recording of all these seven types. This can be deduced from the way of his commenting upon different verses and also from some of his remarks.2 In his opinion, Bharata expounds these four varieties in four lines beginning with devena cāpi and ending with śṛṅgārasa-sambhavah.3

As it has been already mentioned, the last four varieties of nṛttas are unmistakably nṛtya types. It would be fantastic even to imagine that the medieval designation of nṛtta and nṛtya is unknown to Abhinava who lived in the same epoch in which Dhananjaya and Dhanika did. If so, why does he not use that terminology of nṛtta and nṛtya to name the varieties of nṛttas of the above two groups respectively, especially when he admits the important difference that existed between them?

No definite answer to this question exists in his writing, but it may not be impossible to get some, if verbal proof itself is not demanded. Although in the present text of the Nāṭyaśāstra the word nṛtya is seen in some places, yet that cannot be taken as reliable. And it looks reasonably certain that nṛtta alone is used by Bharata. So it can be assumed that for some reason or the other the word nṛtya was introduced into the Nāṭyaśāstra in later times when it became quite popular.

Whatever the case may be, Abhinava adheres to the reading nṛtta throughout his commentary. This may be the reason why Abhinava never uses the word nṛtya to call the four nṛttas of the second group, although they are unmistakably nṛtya varieties. This seems quite plausible when the opinions of some of the earlier commentators are taken into consideration.

Abhinava at the end of the fourth chapter quotes, probably verbatim, at least in a few cases, some older views about the question whether or not nāṭya and nṛtta are identical.4 All those commentators keep in mind

1 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 184.

2 ibid. p. 182, ll. 24–5.

3 N.S., Vol. I, Ch. 4, pp. 181–2.

4 A.B., Vol. I, pp. 207–8.

Page 38

ABHINAVA ON THE ORIGIN AND CLASSIFICATION OF NRTTA

nrtya and express their opinion on this point according to their

views. But none of them uses the word nrtya. Why is this? Here

too, at present there is no more convincing explanation other than

what we have offered above. A conclusion may, tentatively, be

drawn that not only Abhinava, but also others, whose works are

closely connected with the Nātyaśāstra, i.e. whose works are really

commentaries or the like, do not use the word nrtya, adhering to

the usage of the Nātyaśāstra (i.e. because of its absence in the

Nātyaśāstra), and use according to the necessity nrtta alone to mean

both nrtta as well as nrtya. This conclusion does not, however,

imply that all these older authors think of Śiva alone as responsible

for nrtya too and Bharata is the person to write about these two arts

as Abhinava does. In the absence of their complete works,

we do not know what views they may have held on these and

other issues.

Perhaps for the reason mentioned above Abhinava never uses

the word nrtya, however definitely he may accept that particular art.

There is room for discussion of his views on these four types and

the compositions that fall under these types. Apart from these, his

remarks on some compositions like dombikā are too complex in

nature. It is useless to enter into these details which will hardly help

us in our present endeavour. Another important point here is that

even though he too, like Dhanika and others, uses here and there

the words padārtha and vākyārtha, it is not for the same purpose.

Nowhere does he say anything that confines the four nrttas of the

second group, i.e. which are nrtya types to express bhāvas alone.

He never designates them to be padārthābhinayātmakea, which is

significant.

So far as the word angaviksepa goes he too uses it several times in

different contexts.1 Notwithstanding such usages he does not

mean what most of the other medieval theorists do. As is clear

from one of his observations, he imparts the meaning of angahāra

to it. That is why he says, as mentioned earlier, vilāsena kṣepah =

vikṣepah. There is no reason to suppose that he equally prefers it.

He uses this also, perhaps it was prevalent in his times, but he certain-

ly gives it a refined meaning keeping in mind the significance of

ibid pp. 21, 174, 176, etc.

Page 39

22 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

aṅgahāra (which will be explained by us later). Thus, we may presume, he differs to some extent from the people of his own time. This is all that we need to know for the present about Abhinava’s view regarding the most important points.

It is a habit with some modern scholars to ascribe everything found in his commentary to Abhinava’s credit. But the facts are otherwise. Even what he says about the second type of abhinaya is not his own. The idea is fully found in his teacher Bhaṭṭatota’s opinion.1 Similarly many other items also go to the earlier commentators. He knows what most of his predecessors have got to say on these and allied subjects, which is not a discredit of course.

Moreover, he utilises much of it in a masterly way. This is the case with our present subject too. Even if there is at all something to be denied in these matters he says in the present topic, that will be very little indeed, when we take the whole development that takes place in the period beginning from the Bharata down to his own time.

But like most of the ancient writers, he too inherits the habit of attributing everything to a single authority. Abhinava also traces the origin of nrtya to Śiva and presumes Bharata as the writer on it.

In fact this is not the case, or at least the authority of the Nāṭyaśāstra on which he bases and comments is too slender for such a theory.

This obviously does not mean that everything that he says is untrue. What he says is true as well as useful when the whole development of nrtya is to be dealt with.

But all that he says about the origin of nrtya is untrue and unacceptable.

As the development of nrtya is not of our present concern, we may now approach the Nāṭyaśāstra independent of Abhinava’s interpretations to know something of all the three arts.

THE ORIGIN OF NRTTA

TRADITIONALLY it is accepted that Śiva is responsible for the creation of nrtta and also that he is the first performer of this art.

The Nāṭyaśāstra accepts the fact, as is proved from the beginning of its fourth chapter and many other scattered references.

In this connection one may recall some archaeological evidences found in the ancient city of Mohenjodaro, such as the statuette of a danseuse

1ibid. p. 207.

Page 40

and the seal bearing the figure identified by experts to be Paśupati

or Śiva.1 As the Nātyaśāstra, the earliest extant work on these

subjects, admits of Śiva’s intimate connection with nrtta, one may

connect this fact with the archaeological evidences and conclude that

nrtta has been practised in India at least for five thousand years.

There cannot be any doubt at all about the fact that the practice of

nrtta goes back to a very remote age. Nevertheless, there is no sound

evidence to prove that the nrtta supposed to have existed in the

times of Mohenjodaro is the same nrtta that is expounded in the

fourth chapter of the Nātyaśāstra. The evidences for the mere

existence of a kind of dance will not do when the problems are

to be tackled on the basis of concepts. The seal bearing Śiva cannot

be taken as a sound evidence to prove a serious point that is needed

now. Some scenes of nrtta seen in relief panels of Bharhut, Sānchi,

Amarāvatī, Udayagiri,2 and so on, are unmistakable evidences that

prove the existence of the tradition of nrtta that is expounded by

Bharata, even the Barhut specimen, the earliest among these, is

too late an example to prove the antiquity of this nrtta. If so,

no sound evidences are available to trace the beginnings of the

nrtta of the Nātyaśāstra in fact. If the perfection reached at the stage

which Bharata records is taken into consideration, this much can

be definitely said that its origin goes far back, because such a

perfection cannot imaginably be reached within a short time.

THE ORIGIN OF NĀTYA

So FAR as nātya is concerned there are several theories about its

origin.3 They need not be repeated here, since they are not based

on sound proofs, i.e. they are too speculative and not helpful. But

one among them may be briefly mentioned now. Pānini mentions

two works of Nata-sūtras — one by Śilāli and the other by

1 A.A.I., Plates 3 and 4, A and C.

2 Bht., Book No. III, Plates XLII, (39) and XXII, (17 b), see also Plate

XXXIX (34) for the singled out panel of the latter.

M.S., Vol. II, Plate XVIII, b, lower panel.

M.G., Plates X, B; XI, A; and XIV, C.

A.S., Plate XLIII, a.

3 For details see S.D., p. I et seq.

Page 41

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA : THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Krśāśva.1 Scholars differ with regard to the meaning of naṭa mentioned by Pāṇini. Some say that the √naṭa being a prākṛtised form of the Sanskrit √nṛt, does not mean the actor, but the dancer, so the Naṭa-sūtras mentioned by Pāṇini are manuals or hand-books on dance and not on dramatic art. The other group of scholars says that these are works on dramatic art, but they do not seem to be in a position to prove their view concretely, so also in the matter of proving the existence of a full-fledged dramatic art before the Christian era. Whatever may be the differences among them in interpreting the root words, in the matter of proving the early existence of dramatic art the scholars fail to do justice to the theory of nāṭya.

In an unpublished work entitled Problems Connected with Some Technical Terms Used by Bharata, we have tried to trace the chronology of dramaturgic works on the basis of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Our study leads us to trace three works before Bharata — (i) a Sūtra work on nāṭya; (ii) a Bhāṣya on it, and (iii) Ānuvamśya verses occupying the place of vārttikas and quoted by Bharata here and there in the Nāṭya-śāstra (which thus becomes the fourth in the chronological order). But in the absence of sound proof in determining the dates of all these three works mentioned by Bharata difficulties persist. In the circumstances, if we base on the nature of these three works, or if we permit ourselves a theory, we may assume that two centuries of time elapse between each pair of these works (i.e. Sūtra and Bhāṣya, Bhāṣya and Ānuvamśya verses, and Ānuvamśya verses and the Nāṭya-śāstra). If so, the Sūtra work mentioned by Bharata precedes the Nāṭyaśāstra by six centuries. Further, there is the difficulty in fixing a definite date to the Nāṭyaśāstra itself. Until now no date could be finally assigned to it. It is the general contention that the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra as available today was not written at one time, in its present form it embodies additions and alterations. Nowadays there is, however, a general agreement among the scholars in regard to its date. It is thought that its beginnings belong to the second or the third century A.D., while no additions are made later than the fifth century A.D. But no one has tried to point out which portions are the additions, except to suggest some vague theories that the

1 A., 4-3-110 and III.

Page 42

THE ORIGIN OF NATYA

portion dealing with music is a later addition.1 There is no doubt about the fact that there are some additions in it. But the assumption of some scholars, like S. K. De, that the portion dealing with music is a later addition is not based on solid grounds. In fact, it is quite one of the earliest portions of the text because it falls, as mentioned in the saṃgraha repertorium, or in the table of contents, within the scope of the original plan of the Nātyaśāstra. We have suggested in our work referred to earlier, that the portion from the sāṃānyābhinaya chapter to the beginning of the chapter on siddhi and secondly the portion beginning after the chapter on avanaddha to the end of the present text, are the later additions. Apart from these portions there are also some small sections which may be suspected to be later additions. Whatever may be our differences regarding the additions, unless we can decide upon the original text, at least with some degree of confidence, no date can be finally fixed. Similarly, it is to be seen whether or not words like Śaka, Bāhlīka, etc., to which our scholars attach such importance, come under the original portions. So, to fix the date of the Nātyaśāstra is not a simple matter. Whether or not the Nātyaśāstra goes back earlier than the second century A.D. none can say with certainty. For the present, the second century A.D. may be tentatively accepted as its possible date of composition. Then the Sūtra work mentioned by Bharata may go back to the fourth century B.C., which is assumed to be Pāṇini's date. We do not find any meaning in arguing that in Pāṇini's age the actor is not meant by the word naṭa and that Naṭasūtras mentioned by Pāṇini are not the works on nāṭya or dramaturgic art. On the contrary, it can be definitely said that the Naṭasūtras mentioned by him are works on dramaturgy. But at the present time it is not possible to decide whether the Sūtra work known to Bharata is identical with one of the two mentioned by Pāṇini.

While defining saṃgraha (repertorium or table of contents) Bharata specifies that it is necessary that the things to be included in saṃgraha must be those which are dealt with in the Sūtra work and Bhāṣya. From this it is quite clear that most of the subjects which he deals with in the Nātyaśāstra are already expounded in the Sūtra work mentioned by him. It is, then, the plain conclusion that a comprehensive

1 H.S.P., Vol. I, p. 32 et seq.

Page 43

theory on nātya existed four centuries before the Christian era. If these were the conditions then, it is impossible to state that dramatic art is not in a fully developed stage and flourishing condition. But, it is true that no specimen of dramatic composition, even by name, of these early days are known to us. The earliest specimens that we know today, though fragmentarily, are of Aśvaghoṣa, a well-known poet and Buddhist philosopher of the first century A.D. Nevertheless, the evidence for such a practice is not lacking.

Patañjali belongs to the second century B.C. and he mentions the word nata several times. All such usages can be taken to be proofs of the existence of nāṭya. One among them decides the question beyond any doubt. In a discussion he utilises naṭa-bhāryās as an analogy, where he says that whoever may ask the wives of naṭas when they enter the stage ‘Whose are you’, they reply ‘We belong to you, you the very person’ -(‘vyañjanāni punar naṭa-bhāryāvad bhavanti tadyathā natāṁsriyō raṅgagātā yō yaḥ prcchati kasya yūyaṁ iti taṁ taṁ tava tavaivetyāhuḥ1’). This positively proves not only the practice of nāṭya at that time but also the existence of whole families who take to acting as a profession.

So it can be deduced that a fully developed theory and practice of nāṭya is to be found in the fourth century before the Christian era. There is no positive or known proof to decide the conditions prevailing beyond this age. In the circumstances one may try to guess something, working only on the assumption ‘what it might have been’. But this ‘what it might have been’ will vary according to the preference or approach or sometimes on the inclination of the individual, as was the case with the early generation of the modern scholars. So this ‘what it might have been’ may prove good as an ideal in one’s own times, but it cannot be decisive in dealing with facts that occurred in the remote past. This again brings us back to the point that to discuss something about the origin and nature of these arts there is no other means than the concepts themselves. Such concepts are traceable, as we have shown, from the fourth century B.C., even if these are not available directly from the works of that age. These are available through the Nāṭya-śāstra, as is clear from the saṅgraha of Bharata, that is to say that we can depend upon the Nāṭyaśāstra for the concepts, and that whatever

1 See M.B., (on sūtra 6-1-2), p. 530.

Page 44

important concepts are noted in it can be assumed as continuing the ones from the fourth century B.C. or slightly earlier times. In the first few chapters of the Nātyaśāstra an episode regarding some questions of nātya, for example its birth and so on, is recorded. This episode too, like many others, has suffered much from unscientific and inappropriate interpretations. For, through the mythological veil, it certainly refers to some historical facts; it may be useful to present it here.

Once upon a time when Jambūdvīpa was occupied by various kinds of peoples like devas, dānavas, gāndharvas, yakṣas, rākṣasas, nāgas (mahoraga), and so on, and when the world became miserable because of all sorts of evil passions and began to behave rustically, the gods. approached Brahma and requested him for a playful thing (krīdanīyaka) which should be both spectacle (dṛśya) and audible (śrāvya) and which should be accessible to all. If it would be such, then, everybody may realise through that what is righteous and what is wrong, and what is good and what is bad, and what ought to be done and what ought not to be done and so on. Brahma considered this request. At that time his intention was to create such a thing which would be able to yield virtue, wealth, fame, which would be instructive and protective (sasaṅgraha); which would be to the future generations a revelation of all sorts of activity, which would contain a theme (sētihāsam); which would be inclusive of the conclusions of all the sciences and also, inclusive of all kinds of arts.

With this intention he contemplated on the four Vedas and was impressed with the respective features that characterise them, such as the literary aspect of Ṛgveda, the aspect of action of Yajurveda, the musical aspect of Sāmaveda and lastly the aspect of Rasa of Atharvaveda. Then, with the ideas and clues thus derived, he created the thing named nāṭya, dramatic art, out of the four following things— pāṭhya, to be uttered (i.e. verbal or literary composition); abhinaya, act of communication; gāna, song; and rasa, bliss, —as its four constituents. After its creation Brahma asked Indra, lord of gods, to make the gods adopt and perform it; and then the latter humbly answered that the gods were not worthy for this purpose, since they were unable to grasp or to remember and also to perform it. The sages who were restrained and well versed in the secrets of the Vedas could grasp, hold and perform it. Brahma, hearing this, asked

Page 45

Bharata to become a performer of nāṭya along with his sons. And Bharata learnt it from Brahma and taught his sons. Then he informed Brahma of this and asked what he had to do further. In reply to this, Brahma told him that the date of the festival of dhvaja (flag) was nearing and he should perform this at that time, which would be a fit occasion. Accordingly a Samavakāra, (one of the ten varieties of plays expounded in the Nāṭyaśāstra), by name Amṛta-manthana, was staged. Thus runs this episode with many more details which need not be mentioned here, except for the following one.

After some time had passed Brahma again told Bharata that he was desirous of showing his new creation to Śiva in order to seek his opinion about it. Mentioning thus he asked Bharata to prepare along with his sons for this purpose. Then Brahma with Bharata and his troupe went to Hīmālaya, the abode of Śiva, and requested Śiva to do him a favour by witnessing and hearing his new creation. Śiva agreed and a Dima (another variety of ten plays) named Tripuradāha was staged in addition to the Samavakāra namely Amṛtamanthana. All the Bhūtagaṇas, followers of Śiva, who saw the performances, much enjoyed them and Śiva the pioneer in the creation and performance of nṛtta, dance, was greatly impressed by this and glad too, so that he told Brahma of his willingness to give his art i.e. nṛtta and suggested that he should add it to pūvarañga, the preliminaries of nāṭya in order to make it vivid (citra). Brahma said to him, ‘Please do give it to us’. Śiva, then, called Taṇḍu, his chief follower, and ordered him to teach (ācakṣva, lit. tell) the aṅgahāras or nṛtta to Bharata. So he did this and Bharata used it accordingly.

This episode does not support several current views about the nature, origin and the development of nāṭya. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Indian drama is an opera type. This view is based on a misunderstanding of certain instructions given for the use of some accompaniments, for example, music, or a misunderstanding about the relation between drama proper and its accessories. To describe the nature of Indian drama is in itself a complicated and difficult task and it cannot be done here except in passing. In regard to the development of nāṭya or rather the development of plays, there is a view, as once already mentioned,

Page 46

that the first play to exist is bhāna, from which others gradually evolved. But according to this episode we notice that the first to be created is samavakāra while the next is dima, however these are not mentioned here as representing the stages of the evolution.

Further, according to the theory of the Nātyaśāstra, the principal factor for the division of the plays is the vṛtti, unlike the later theory which completely ignores the vṛtti and mentions in its place themes and other things. Till now neither vṛtti nor the difference of plays on its basis has been properly studied. That is a task for the future.

Until this work is satisfactorily done nothing can be concluded definitely. Therefore the view that considers bhāna to be the first play cannot be taken for granted.

So far as the origin of nāṭya goes, the above episode clearly points out that nāṭya does not originate in religion and is not meant to serve religious purposes, however much it may take the names of the gods, including Brahma, Śiva, and so on. Utterly destructive conditions brought it forth. It is meant to save the world from the evils through correctly focusing light on everything. Even its connection with dhvajamaha does not prove its relation with religion. Nāṭya is not created in view of dhvajamaha, the latter is just an occasion for its first performance, that is to say its connection with dhvajamaha is accidental rather than essential and purposeful. Its origin and purpose too is secular and not religious. Secondly, we do not notice in this episode that nāṭya has any connection with either nṛtta or even nṛtya before its creation. On the contrary, we see quite clearly that nṛtta came into contact with it much later. Therefore it would be wrong to think of its origin in nṛtta and it would be more wrong to do so in nṛtya, since such a thing is not mentioned or rather does not exist at all before nāṭya.

Hence the conclusion is that the arts of nṛtta and nāṭya are of independent origin, though the former is obviously older than the latter. This goes very well with Abhinava's view on Bharata's salutation at the very beginning of the text, 'praṇamya śirasā devau pitāmaha-maheśvarau'. There he says that Brahma and Śiva are offered salutation, because they are the formateurs, responsible for the first creation (upajin̐ā) of nāṭya and nṛtta respectively. Since their creation up to the present day they have never merged into each other and moreover run parallel in ways peculiar to them, in

Page 47

30 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

spite of some effects born out of their later contact. So far as the date of the origin of nātya goes, as in the case of nrtta, nothing definite can be said now. But, as has been mentioned earlier, it may be said that in the fourth century B.C. nātya existed as a well developed art.

THE ORIGIN OF NRTYA

FROM where does nrtya come and how? These are the questions we should now study. In the preceding legendary episode there is no mention of it. Even in the whole text of the Nātyaśāstra this word is never used. This can be taken for granted in spite of the fact that there are some readings of nrtya in the fourth chapter of it. As already pointed out, in the absence of a motive to give a name to a type of art as nrtya, we can, without hesitation, take those readings as later interpolations or that might have crept into it by carelessness on the part of readers and scribes. This obviously leads one to presume that nrtya is not known to the Nātyaśāstra as an older art, that is to say that there exists no such art before the Nātyaśāstra, but it does not mean that such an art may not have been created in the epoch of the Nātyaśāstra.

In fact, as is clear from the Nātyaśāstra, such an art came into existence in the time of the Nātyaśāstra. We have already noted in the legendary episode that Śiva expressed his willingness to give his art, nrtta, to Brahma. In this connection Śiva suggested to Brahma the way in which to utilise nrtta in nātya if it is learnt from him. He says: ‘mahāgiteṣu caivārthān samyagevābhineṣyasi’1. In its context it means: you can very well communicate (abhineṣyasi) with it (nrtta) the things (artha) out of which the songs are composed, the songs that are sung in the pūrvaranga, preliminaries of the nātya. Thus Śiva suggested how to use his art in the nātya. Śiva’s nrtta is known to be devoid of abhinaya. It is quite obvious from the nature of it, or from the description of karaṇas and aṅgahāras out of which nrtta is made and also from the question raised in the Nātyaśāstra about the purpose of nrtta. But Śiva said that one can communicate things with it. Then how is it possible for him to have said this?

1 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 90.

Page 48

abhinaya in the performance of nāṭya, the abhinaya which is entirely

new to him, an idea might have come into his mind that abhinaya

can be introduced into his art, nrtta, and things communicated. To

explain it further, if his art is performed with a given intention and

order, then the things may be conveyed with his art as well. It is

quite natural to strike new ideas when a thing is perceived newly.

If the same happened with Śiva, there should not be any wonder.

So, if the present situation is explained in this way, it will not be

without sequence. Thus here lies the seed of nrtya. What Śiva did

here was just to give the hint. Then who is it that actually worked

out the details of combining nrtta and abhinaya in such a way that

with nrtta also things may be conveyed without causing much loss

to its character? As the performer of nāṭya was Bharata and as he

was the person to whom Śiva ordered Tandu to teach nrtta, no

person other than Bharata was there, or need be supposed, for the

working out of such details.

We have already noticed that Abhinava takes a different stand

while interpreting the sentences or the usages like the above quoted

ones without any convincing reasons. So what he says on this need

not be repeated. Also, if his interpretation is taken to be correct,

the development that took place in the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra

disappears from our knowledge, hence his view cannot be accepted.

We are to proceed on different lines, so in this investigation we

need not at this point consider his opinion in detail. The fantastic

meaning he gives to the word abhinaya in some places will hardly

hold good. Therefore, in this place by abhinaya we are to understand

the same as Bharata meant by his definition, i.e. here abhinaya means

nothing but the act of communication. If so, the proper conclusion,

to repeat it, is that just on the hint of Śiva, Bharata worked out the

details of combining nrtta and abhinaya which lead to the birth of

a new art, i.e. nrtya.

The fact that the combination of nrtta and abhinaya resulted in

the creation of a new art is further supported by two verses quoted

by Abhinava in Kohala's name whom tradition acknowledges as

an unquestionable authority second only to Bharata. So far as our

knowledge goes, these verses escaped the notice of the modern

scholars, including D.R. Mankad. Though Kohala's name is met

with frequently in the works on dance, drama and music, no genuine

Page 49

32 NATYA, NRITTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

work of his is yet available and whatever works are available in

his name, those are, in the opinion of modern scholars, much later

works. Whether or not it is the same also with these verses quoted

by Abhinava we cannot say. But on the authority of Abhinava

they may be taken as genuine. In reality even if these verses are

not by Kohala they are likely to be quite early ones, for Abhinava

quotes them. Therefore there would not be any doubt about the

fact that they throw considerable light on the subject in question.

These two verses run as follows :

'sandhyāyāṁ nṛtyataḥ sambhoḥ bhaktyāgre nāradaḥ purā

gāavān tripuronmāthaṁ taccittastvatha gītake

cakārābhinayaṁ prītaḥ tataḥ tāṇḍuṁ ca so'bravīt

nātyoketābhinayenedam vatsa yojaya tāṇḍavam1'.

What these mean is this: in the past time in front of Śiva, while

he was dancing in the evening (sandhyā, twilight) Nārada sung with

devotion a song having the subject of his (Śiva's) victory over a

demon called Tripura, and Śiva getting the mind identified with

the meaning of that song and becoming joyful, does the abhinaya

(i.e. enacted it or communicated its meaning with dance); and

afterwards He told Tāṇḍu to combine (yojaya, add) the tāṇḍava

(i.e. nṛtta) with the abhinaya used in nāṭya.

These verses tell us frankly that nṛtta precedes nāṭya in point of

time and later on when nāṭya comes into existence, abhinaya is added

to nṛtta, taking the idea from nāṭya. Another quite significant thing

is that these verses are connected with Kohala. Thus from internal

and external evidences we come to know that abhinaya is added to

nṛtta. Still there is some difference in regard to the creator of the

new art, nṛtya, that is, between the conclusion we have reached at

from the Nāṭyaśāstra and the one drawn from these two verses.

According to the Nāṭyaśāstra Bharata himself is responsible for

the creation of the new art, though he has received a hint from

Śiva about it. And in accordance with these verses Śiva, by himself

1 A.B., Vol. I, p. 182.

'agre' and 'nātyokta' are amendments for the readings 'ādrau' and nātyok-

tva which are available in print. The former may be retained and explained

as it is, but the latter is certainly incorrect.

Page 50

THE ORIGIN OF NRTYA

once doing this, orders Tanḍu to canonise or systematise it, thus Śiva is responsible for this new art. Surely guided by these verses Abhinava comments on the verses of the Nātyaśāstra, such as ‘devena’ and so on. Apart from this he might have been led by this also while commenting on other verses. Now we cannot sacrifice what we get from the Nātyaśāstra to what we see in these later verses, because a motive can easily be noticed in these two verses to insist on the godly origin of the new art. The result caused by this motive continues throughout the ages that followed. It does not seem to lose its hold even today if we notice the endeavour of some modern scholars to prove that the quite later and insignificant work like Abhinayadarpaṇa, has a great antiquity, at least with regard to its content, because it is propagated to be Nandikeś-vara’s (Tanḍu) work. Leaving aside these questions, if we come to the point we can rely better on the Nātyaśāstra, which is the earliest extant work. Moreover, the Nātyaśāstra seems to give more reliable or accurate information in which a natural sequence of things is present. In Kohala’s verses also there is an endeavour to show some sequence of things, yet it seems to depend on the Nātyaśāstra itself. All this leads us to take the account given in the Nātyaśāstra as being the more authentic. In that case Bharata himself is responsible for the creation of this new art, nrtya. In spite of the difference pointed out in Kohala’s verses, if we look into the problem in the light of Kohala’s traditionally known dependence on Bharata, our conclusion seems proper and plausible.

Although Bharata is responsible for the birth of nrtya, yet it develops to full extent only after him. This can be said on the basis of the Nātyaśāstra itself, which has no separate treatment of nrtya in it. This is quite plausible as well as natural, because nrtya is as yet in the initial stage. This point is further proved by the absence of a separate name for it. This shows that such a necessity had not been felt at the time, this, again, because of its initial stage. There is no definite evidence available to show after what period of time this new art gained a separate name of its own i.e. nrtya. We have seen that Bharata also called it nrtta and his commentators or rather most of his commentators too do so even up to the tenth century A.D. This does not however mean that the name nrtya was given to it only after the tenth century A.D.

Page 51

34 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Amarasimha, who is known as the first lexicographer of Sanskrit, notes the word nrtya in the technical sense. Although the √nrt is frequently used in its several tenses in the older literature, yet it cannot refer to anything but nrtta. Amarasimha's familiarity with the technical terms of nātya, nrtya nrtta, gāndharva, and so on is self-evident. Relying on his statement 'tāndavaṃ natanam nātyam lāsyam nrtyam ca nartane' 1 it can be said that this new art gained its name nrtya, before Amarasimha and became popular to the extent that a lexicographer could not avoid including it in his work, Nāmalingānusāsana, popularly known as Amarakośa. This is to say that by the fifth century A.D. this new art was quite popular, with its own or a separate name, nrtya. But as to when it got its name no definite date can be mentioned at present.

It is needless to say that in the time of the Nātyaśāstra when it was not so much as given a name of its own, there was also no division or classification of nrtya as tāṇḍava and lāsya. Although the word lāsya is seen in the present text, as for example in the compound word lāsyāṅga, yet it does not refer to the variety of either nrtta or nrtya. Similarly the word tāṇḍava also is found, but this too does not refer to the variety of either nrtta or nrtya. Lāsya is not at all used in connection with nrtta, whereas tāṇḍava is. The variety of nrtta which we today call tāṇḍavanrtta is however not meant by this word. On the basis of some statements, particularly noted in a couple of verses, if at all such verses are not proved by further researches to be later interpolations, we may say that tāṇḍava means, so far as the Nātyaśāstra goes, nothing but nrtta2. Nrtta, according to the particular verses, is also called tāṇḍava, for the simple reason that Tanḍu canonises it, as its etymology, also mentioned by Abhinava, says that 'tando rayam tāṇḍavah' (of Tanḍu).

We have seen that tāṇḍava is a synonym to nrtta, so that there exists no classification of nrtta, as tāṇḍava and lāsya, but this does not mean that there exists no variety in this art. This really means that no such classification is to be found in theory. Varieties in the art existed probably even before the Nātyaśāstra, because these varieties

1 A.K., kāṇḍa I, Nātyavarga, Sl. 10. (Vol. I, p. 141). The commentators and editors (of modern times) sometimes suggest the reading nrtta in the place of nrtya. This suggestion does not seem to be based on serious grounds.

2 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, verses 266-8, pp. 171-2.

Page 52

are based on the broad classification of rasa, rather on the basis of its qualities — citta-dravibhāva and dīpti.1

It will be worth while to inquire whether in the Nātyaśāstra we have such a classification and tāṇḍava and lāsya are to be found there in a different guise.

In a few places the word sukumāraprayoga occurs, which obviously meant what we understand now by lāsya, while so far as tāṇḍava is concerned it is not replaced by any other word, but at the same time it is not much used along with lāsya except for once or twice.

In spite of Abhinava's interpretation of tāṇḍava as uddhata (vigorous), if we base ourselves on the original text, it does not appear to be used in the sense of uddhata.

On the contrary, as has been said above, it means only nrtta.

Whatever may be the case with tāṇḍava, here sukumāra, if taken to be reliable, appears to be an obvious usage for the later concept of lāsya.

As an introduction to the topic of piṇḍibandhas Bharata notes that the followers of Śiva, like Nandi (Taṇḍu) Bhadramukha, and so on made the piṇḍibandhas after witnessing the dance of Śiva which followed the spoliation of the Dakṣayajña, the dance accompanied by drums.2

Immediately before this there is a verse which both from the point of grammar and meaning does not fit in with this introduction.

Moreover it is a kind of repetition.

This verse says that the piṇḍibandhas were made after the dance of Śiva with recakas and aṅgahāras and also of Pārvatī who was dancing with delicate gestures i.e. delicate recakas and aṅgahāras.

Apart from other inadequacies, the most absurd thing in this is the mention of the presence of Pārvatī immediatly after the destruction of Dakṣayajña.

Further, this verse does not have grammatically any connection with either its preceding or succeeding verses.

It is quite apparent, when we look at it in the context in which it is found, that it is some kind of violent and inappropriate insertion.

So it may be inferred that in later times, when this classification came into existence and was generally accepted, some people might have tried to incorporate it here in order to show Bharata himself as an authority for this classification of nrtta and nrtya as tāṇḍava and lāsya.

Such motives are at work in other periods also.

Witness, for instance, Abhinava's

1 This matter will be discussed in the pages following.

2 N.S., Vol. I, Ch. 4, Sls. 258-60, p. 167.

Page 53

NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

rejection of reading ‘dṛṣṭo mayā’ in the place of ‘dṛṣṭo mayā’ in the

first chapter itself.1

There is another place where the same usage, sukumāra-prayoga,

is found.2 On the basis of this Abhinava says that the four kinds

of nrttas (in the present sense nrtyas as explained by us earlier) are

expounded by Bharata. With his scholarly gift for twisting

things according to convenience, what he says on this is fantastic

and it is impossible to accept him. This usage too, like the previous

one, and for the same reasons, appears to be an interpolation.

For the present we cannot put this forward as a theory, but we may

mention by way of suggestion for further investigation a point that

not only these two or three verses but also all the verses of a long

portion of the fourth chapter, — the portion which begins from this

place (i.e. sl. 274) and ends with the chapter, — seem to be interpola-

ted. The subject mainly dealt with in this portion is how the nrtta,

with and without its newly acquired abhinaya, should be used in

pūrvarañga by the natī and her women companions. There is no

sufficient ground why such a method should be described in this

place rather than in its proper context i.e. the chapter devoted to

pūrvarañga. There are in it a considerable number of verbal repeti-

tions of topics belonging to the later chapters. Abhinava admits

this and also gives some sort of explanations for it, but they are not

convincing.3 Such repetitions may rather be taken as indications

of the fact that this long portion is an interpolation of a later date.

Though in all probability an interpolation, this portion of the

Nāṭyaśāstra is in some ways a useful addition. It says that when the

natī enters drums should be played and while the song is on she

should communicate its meaning and at the end of each verse

the natī should dance and so on. This method seems akin to, if

not identical with, our present day practice. This part would be

helpful in tracing certain of the ancient practices. For though an

interpolation, it is considerably old. Of course no value is to be

attached to this so far as the Nāṭyaśāstra is concerned. Be that as it

may, certain verses, including those that contain the reference to

sukumāra-prayoga, and on which Abhinava draws several inferences,

1 ibid. pp. 21-2.

2 ibid. p. 182. For Abhinava’s view on this see p. 181 et seq.

3 A.B., Vol. I, p. 185, ll. 15-16; p. 188, l. 14 et seq.; p. 189, ll. 11-13.

Page 54

THE ORIGIN OF NRTYA

seem to be later interpolations. If so, the usages of sukumāra-prayoga

cannot be taken as reliable or belonging to the original text of the

Nāṭyaśāstra. If we come to the word tāṇḍava, nowhere in the Nāṭya-

śāstra do we find it to convey the sense of uddhata, as a counterpart to

lāsya or sukumāra. Abhinava's putting of such a meaning into it is

an act of intellectual gymnastics.

If therefore the usages sukumāraprayoga and the like are but

interpolated and the word tāṇḍava does not connote the sense uddhata,

then there is no reason to say that the classification of either nṛtta

or nrtya as tāṇḍava and lāsya existed in the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

Therefore it is not improper to conclude that before the Nāṭyaśāstra

nṛtya did not exist, that Bharata is responsible for the creation of

it while the classification of either nṛtta or nṛtya as tāṇḍava and lāsya

was still not known or even made in the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

And at that time the word tāṇḍava was a synonym of the word nṛtta.

Even if Bharata's contact with Śiva, as described in the Nāṭyaśāstra,

is considered to be unreliable, the episode need not be taken to be

untrue as once remarked, for through the mythological veil it

certainly refers to some historical facts. If we look into this episode

without paying any value to the mythological colouring,

our conclusion would not change. It is in the time of Bharata that

nṛtta came into contact with nāṭya, both being developed indepen-

dently of each other upto that time and it is this contact that lead

to the creation of a new art, nṛtya, which is Bharatopajñaka (i.e.

created by Bharata for the first time).

This is supported by Patañjali also, who often uses in his Mahā-

bhāṣya the √nṛt in many forms, but never in the proper sense of nṛtya.

The absence of a word or concept in a grammar book may not

in all cases prove the non-existence of a given thing. But in this

particular case, this omission may be taken as additional evidence,

as it is in conformity with the matter deduced from the Nāṭyaśāstra.

While dealing with nāṭya we have mentioned that the Mahābhāṣya

definitely refers to the art of nāṭya, so in every respect we have the

support of the Māhābhāṣya of Patañjali in favour of our conclusion.

In still older literature, including Vedic, the √nṛt is used, as has been

brought to light by modern scholars. But so far none can point

to any decisive evidence regarding the existence of nṛtya. On the

contrary, they only prove the existence of nṛtta, of whatever kind.

Page 55

38 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

it may be. As Ananda K. Coomaraswamy points out, some usages of hattamudda (hastamudrā) can be noticed in Pāli literature too. How much older Jātaka literature is than the Nāṭyaśāstra has first to be considered before reaching any conclusion on the subject. Another problem connected with these usages is that hastamudrā is not known to be used in any work on nrtya, nrtta or nātya. It is only in the last two or three decades that this word has crept into use by some people in this field or science. In the literature concerned with these arts hand-gesture is always mentioned as hastas or abhinaya-hastas and nrtta-hastas but never as hastamudrā. So it is necessary to investigate what is the tradition that works behind the usages of hattamudda in Pāli literature. Even if those usages are the same in every respect with the technical usages of the hasta in dramaturgic literature, they cannot disprove our conclusion that nrtya was created by Bharata for the first time. It should be borne in mind that abhinayahastas are not confined to nrtya alone, on the contrary, these come into existence along with nātya itself. Neither nātya nor its literature is in any way later than the beginnings of Pāli literature connected with Buddhism. Therefore there is as yet no evidence to disprove our conclusion reached mainly on the basis of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

A few odd usages of the √nrt are not sufficient to prove the existence of nrtya before the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Some modern translations of these usages earlier than the Nāṭyaśāstra treat it as mimicry. But this will not do here. We are concerned with definite concepts. The people who translate nrt as mimicry should explain what they mean by mimicry and what they understand by the word nrtya. So the modern translations need not disturb us.

Nowadays it is known to all that a school of nrtya prevalent in South India is called Bharata-nāṭyam. Since when this appellation has been in vogue it is difficult to say with certainty. All that can be said with confidence is that it has gained ground from a few decades. Here it should be noted that Vipradāsa says (for reference see p. 9, footnote 1) that in a secondary or extended sense the word nāṭya could also be used to denote nrtya. From the passages quoted in Bharatakośa it seems that Kumbha Rānā and Vipradāsa hold identical views in several respects. On this basis we may assume that Kumbha Rānā also says that the word nāṭya could be

Page 56

THE ORIGIN OF NRTYA

used to mean nrtya. On what grounds these authors say that the

word nāṭya could be used to denote nrtya is not important here.

What is important is that they agree to it. In one sense or the

other it might have been in vogue, because of which they had to

note the fact. So, we have the evidence to reach a conclusion that

the word nāṭya was used in the fifteenth century to mean also

nrtya. We know that Amarasimha in his lexicon mentions nāṭya,

nartana, tāṇḍava, lāsya, nrtya and naṭana to be synonyms. There is

no clue in his book to know for what reasons he counts nāṭya and

nrtya to be synonyms. There is nothing that can explain this identi-

fication. The present practice and Vipradasa’s clear statement on

the one hand and on the other Amarasimha’s entry are apparently

similar in so far as calling nrtya as nāṭya is concerned. Still no definite

conclusion can be based on such a similarity, as between these

practices there yawns a gulf of nearly ten centuries. We may,

however, speculate that this new art gained a name of its own, nrtya,

before the fifth century A.D. when its classification as tāṇḍava and

lāsya also came into existence. The period of three centuries is

enough for this to take place. It should be borne in mind that it

does not require much time for the development of nrtya, because,

as we have seen, nrtya is a hybrid art, in other words, this is just a

combination of two already well-developed, well-studied, well-

analysed and well-codified arts, nrtta and nāṭya (or, precisely speak-

ing, abhinaya of nāṭya). Then, there is another important fact.

Before this new art, nrtya, gained a name for itself, this might have

been called by people (later than Bharata) by the very word

nāṭya, but with a word Bharata prefixed to it, i.e. Bharata-nāṭya,

which marks it off from nāṭya proper. In fact, there is nothing

wrong or remarkable if it happened like that, because Bharata

himself is responsible for the creation of this art. Here it may be

pointed out that this assumption would not in any way go against

the fact that most of the commentators on the Nāṭyaśāstra always

mention this art as nrtta, since their practice is in adherence to the

verbal usages of the Nāṭyaśāstra, and the practice as assumed here

is a popular one. In spite of this it is perhaps going astray to say, as

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy does, that ‘Indian acting or dancing — the

same word, Nāṭya, covers both the ideas—is thus a deliberate art.’1

1 M.G., p. 18.

Page 57

40 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

There is little room for doubt that the school of nrtya known as Bharatanātyam is a continuation of the form and tradition started by Bharata himself, although from time to time other elements have entered into it. No other school of nrtya prevailing today has closer relations with the theory of the Nātyaśāstra than this. This can be easily proved with illustrations. What has to be investigated is whether the present name, Bharatanātyam, has been in unbroken use from older times, as does the practice. If such an evidence comes to light, then the matter which is now one of conjecture, would become firmly established.

Thus we have reached a conclusion that Bharata himself is responsible for the creation of nrtya. This much would, in fact, do for our present attempt at revaluating some of the usages of the Nātyaśāstra. We may proceed a little further. There are two reasons: one is that the stage we have traced till now is but an initial stage, and the second is that some sort of material touching upon its later well developed stages is also available. This may help us in our effort to understand the meaning of the three arts—nātya, nrtta and nrtya—as revealed by older texts as well as the real conditions through which these arts have evolved.

In the introduction to his edition of the Bhāvaprakāśa of Śāradātanaya, taking the absence of the names of any uparūpakas and the frequent mention of some authors wherein Kohala’s name is intimately connected with uparūpakas, K. S. Ramaswami Sastri points out that Kohala may be the inventor of these uparūpakas.1 D. R. Mankad, believing in the development of nāṭya (rūpakas) from nrtya (generally identified with uparūpakas), disagrees2 with Sastri on this point and says that there is no occasion in the Nātyaśāstra to deal with nrtya, so that its silence on the point should not be taken as a proof of the non-existence of uparūpakas. He further observes that ‘it may be that Kohala had for the first time arranged and defined them. And, all the evidence cited by Mr. Sastri goes to connect Kohala’s name with the rise of the uparūpakas but not with their invention’. We have already mentioned that Mankad’s approach is unscientific, for he ignores historical facts and it is needless to repeat that he

1 See Introduction to the B.P., 51 ff.

2 T.S.D., 101 ff.

Page 58

THE ORIGIN OF NRTYA

is not correct when he traces the origin of nrtya before nātya. So his arguments against Sastri carry no value.

Before expressing our view about the opinion of Sastri, it is necessary to clear up one thing. Uparūpakas may be covered by nrtya, but the word uparūpaka does not fully include all the possibilities of nrtya, for the obvious reason that if a single piece of song or a verse, however short, is enacted or communicated with the help of a given technique, that would be nrtya. In fact, nrtya originated in this very way. Such short pieces are not included in the classification of uparūpakas or they do not come under any one of the names of recognised uparūpakas. Therefore it would be wrong to explain uparūpakas and nrtya on the analogy of rūpakas and nātya.

While mentioning Kohala as the creator of uparūpakas, Sastri does not take into consideration all the facts from the Nātyaśāstra. It is also not clear whether in his opinion nrtya and uparūpakas are identical or not. So long as he does not identify them, there is no real reason to raise any objection against his opinion that Kohala is the inventor of uparūpakas. At least no material has come to light to disprove this conclusion or assumption. Moreover, there are certain other things such as traditional glorification and mention of Kohala’s name in the Nātyaśāstra, etc., though these are not of a very definite nature, on the basis of which one can draw the same conclusion.

From Amarakośa we noted that by the fifth century A.D. nrtya was sufficiently developed and classified to find a place in a lexicon. If, as we think, it was created in Bharata’s time, i.e. in the second century A.D., then much had happened to it during those three centuries. Such a quick process of development is, as already mentioned, not impossible in the case of a hybrid art. If so, when and in whose hands did this development take place? In the tradition if anybody is highly spoken of after Bharata, that one person is Kohala. He is mentioned as Bharata’s son and pupil. We came across such a mention in the first chapter of the present text of the Nātyaśāstra itself. In the same place we find, it is true, a hundred of such names, but the other sources are usually silent about them, except a few. Among these few Kohala is one. Several later authors quote some verses saying that they are taken from Kohala’s work, even if until now we have not had any work that can be definitely ascribed to

Page 59

42 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

him. Abhinava himself mentions his name in several places in connection with uparūpakas, indicating the fact that a great part of the development of uparūpakas is due to Kohala.1 We may or may not believe in the account given in the present text of the Nātyaśāstra with regard to sons of Bharata, but we can hardly dismiss the fact that Kohala follows Bharata very closely in point of time.

This is unmistakably supported by a statement in the present text of the Nātyaśāstra, that Kohala will elaborate the rest of the matters. To give it in the original: ‘śeṣa muttra tantrena kohalaḥ kathayiṣyati.’2 This verse occurs, we must add, in one of the two big portions which we have ourselves indicated to be later interpolations in the Nātyaśāstra. Though this verse occurs in an unreliable portion, yet it will not fail to support the point in question. Taking all these facts into consideration we may say that in order to get Bharata’s stamp on whatever Kohala says, this verse as well as the portion containing it have been inserted in the Nātyaśāstra, but very unskilfully indeed. It does not necessarily mean that Kohala himself has done this. If he is not the person to do this, at least those, we may assume, who follow him closely, are responsible for this pious fraud. In any case, there can hardly be any doubt about the fact that Kohala comes after Bharata, obviously not after a long time, say, within a century or so.

From the same facts it follows that Kohala himself is responsible for the regularisation of nṛtya as well as the invention of the plays based on nṛtya. Of course, all the varieties of uparūpakas we know of may not be his work. That will be an unnatural supposition for which there is no evidence. The two verses quoted by Abhinava in Kohala’s name and about whose content we have discussed at some length, may also be taken in support of the above conclusion. These two verses are significant indeed. There can be no doubt that Kohala plays a great role in the development of nṛtya.

It is a contention, in some quarters, that the word rāga is not

1 A.B., Vol. I, pp. 173, 182, 183 and also Vol. II, p. 407.

2 N.Ś., Chowkhāmbā, edition Ch. 36, p. 474. In the Kāvyamālā edition it is read in a slightly different and incorrect way. If these readings are amended there will not be a difference in the substance. See K.M. edition Ch. 37, p. 665.

Page 60

known even in the earlier phases of the medieval age, say, in the 7th or 8th century A.D. But if another verse, quoted1 by Abhinava in the name of Kohala in the discussion about the four nrtya types that contain abhinaya, is reliable, then we can safely conclude that

rāga with the concept familiar to us is used in the earlier centuries of the Christian era. It is well known that the word rāga occurs nowhere in the Nātyaśāstra. Taking the traditional glorification of Kohala in matters related to music also as a fact, and connecting the contents of this verse, we may conjecturally say that it is he who gives a turn to the music in one of the phases of its development. If all this turns out to be true, it will show that Kohala plays a unique role not only in the development of nrtya but also of music.

Whatever may be the truth in respect of his contribution to music, it is not so important for our present discussion. So far as nrtya goes he stands very high, even if he is not responsible for the creation of nrtya, but one who regularises it and provides the plays to go with it. This can be said with some confidence. Here mention may be made that the things expounded in a chapter of the Nātyaśāstra, namely Citrābhinayādhyāya, seem to be related in a better way to nrtya than to nātya. This is one of the chapters we suspect to be a later interpolation. This may be proved to some extent by the very fact that this chapter comes after everything concerned with the four kinds of abhinayas has been completed in the previous chapters. It is, however, now difficult to say anything definitely about the question as to whether the particular chapter was inserted in the Nātyaśāstra before Kohala's time or by him or after him. It is unfortunate that we are not in a position to know the date of so important an author as Kohala. On the basis of the account given above we may tentatively assume that he belongs to the period that begins with the third century and ends in the middle of the fourth century A.D.

This means that nrtya develops very well and also some uparūpakas find their way into the public repertory at this time. This is not the end of all problems connected with nrtya and its development, what we have tried to do is to come to some conclusion regarding its origin and some of its developments. There are other problems to be worked out in regard to its further development, problems hard to solve at this time, but they are so important that no critical

1 A.B , Vol. I, p. 184.

Page 61

44 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

effort should be avoided to clear up the tangle in this area of ancient

Indian aesthetics.

In the beginning of the seventh chapter of his work, Saṅgītarat-

nākara, Śārṅgadeva gives the account of the origin of these arts

differently. It is as follows: nartana is of three kinds, namely, nātya,

nrtya and nrtta. Brahma gives Nātyaveda i.e. Nāṭyaśāstra to Bharata.

This implies that Bharata gets these three arts from Brahma. Then

he says that Bharata along with Gandharvas and Apsaras performs

all these three—nātya, nrtya and nrtta—in front of Śiva who shows

his art, tāṇḍava, to them through Taṇḍu, i.e. according to the

instructions of Śiva Taṇḍu shows it to Bharata and his followers.

Pārvati, his consort, shows her art, lāsya, to them. Munis,

having learnt tāṇḍava from Taṇḍu, teach, in their turn, all the

men. Pārvatī first teaches lāsya to Usā, the daughter of Bāṇa, from

whom the Gopis of Dvāravatī learn it. From these learn the women of

Saurāṣṭra and from the latter do the women of the various countries.

Now we can notice that by the time Śārṅgadeva writes his work,

i.e. thirteenth century A.D., something which is related to the classi-

fication of nrtya and nrtta as tāṇḍava and lāsya has been added to the

birth-episode of nāṭya. Moreover, the original episode too, was

falsified. This is plain because Bharata is said to receive all these

three arts from Brahma and also to show them in front of Śiva. This

and similar accounts, therefore, from the historical point of view

carry no value.

To sum up our discussion about the origin of the three arts

— nrtta, nāṭya and nrtya:

The art of nrtta, as expounded in the Nāṭyaśāstra, is prevalent

from the very remote past. According to tradition it was originally

created and practised by Śiva. But it is not possible, at least for the

present, to assume any exact date for its first appearance. All that

can be said is that it is much older than nāṭya.

The art of nāṭya was created by Brahma at a time when Jambūdvīpa

was in a state of crisis and decay. This was done at the request of the

gods to focus the true light on things so that the world might be

saved from its self-created disastrous conditions. Although the

beginning of the Tretāyuga in the vaiśvasvata-manvantara is given

in the Nāṭyāśāstra as its time of origin, yet no date can be defi-

nitely deduced from this legendary account. But nāṭya existed as a

Page 62

well-developed and accomplished art in the fourth century B.C.

Although nrtta comes much earlier, yet nātya is not derived or

developed from it. These two arts run parallel upto the time of the

Nātyaśāstra and meet only at that time.

The art of nrtya was created by Bharata for the first time. It is an

art which combines abhinaya with nrtta. If Bharata’s date is the second

century A.D., then the beginnings of this art have to be traced to

that period. But at this time it had no separate name of its own nor

was it classified (as in later times) as tāṇḍava and lāsya. It gained the

independent name nrtya, was canonised and developed in the hands

of Kohala. Some plays were brought into being by Kohala with this

new art or technique. Kohala’s date is supposed to be sometime

between the third century A.D. and the middle of the fourth century

A.D. If this is true, then we may say that it was at this time that

nrtya became a full-fledged art.

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES

Nātya

Among scholars it is sometimes heard that Bharata nowhere

in his Nātyaśāstra defines nātya, with the sole aim of expounding

which he wrote that monumental work. This, if true, is an extra-

ordinarily serious allegation. Bharata defines the definition itself,

or to put it simply, he describes in very definite terms the method

how a given thing should be defined.1 He calls the definition

nirukta. Accordingly he defines, at least the major subjects, rasa,

bhāva, abhinaya, pravṛtti and so on.2 We need not for the present

enter into such details and it would suffice to mention that in the

whole of the available text of the Nātyaśāstra we do not indeed

find anywhere a definition of nātya in a manner similar to the defi-

nitions of subjects referred to above. Nor do we find it to be defined

in the manner of later writers, i.e. through preparing a ground or

writing an avataraṇikā, and so on. Nevertheless, by this we need not at

1 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 6, Sls. 13–14, pp. 267–8. We have discussed in detail

about these matters in our work (unpublished).

2 ibid. See respectively Vol. I, p. 274 et seq.; p. 343 et seq.; Vol. II, pp. 1–2

and pp. 205–7.

Page 63

46 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

the same time presume that he does not at all define it. Because he does, he says a lot about nāṭya in the episode itself which is narrated in the early chapters, especially in the first chapter. Such matters as virtues, purpose, technique, etc., all come within the topic dealing with nāṭya. There nāṭya is said to be characterised by all such matters. Naturally, one may be in favour of taking the whole of this description of characteristics to be its definition. But all such description, being somewhat loose for a definition or a part of a definition, does not appear to be meant by Bharata as such, but it is definitely a general description of certain vital features of nāṭya. There is, however, at the end of the description one verse which can legitimately be taken as Bharata’s definition of nāṭya.

The fact that Bharata does not write all those verses in order to define nāṭya, but writes only to describe it and he writes a verse at the end of this description in order to define it, is proved further by his usages. In all those verses he uses kṛtam and bhāviṣyati which mean that nāṭya ‘is created’ by me and ‘intended to be’ such and such. On the contrary, in this particular verse he uses ityabhidhīyate meaning ‘it is said’. Nowhere else in this context he uses this abhidhīyate or some similar words such as prakīrtitam, ākhyātam, kathitam, and so on. So it can no doubt be taken to be a decisive factor. But Manomohan Ghosh does not take this into consideration, and we cannot agree with him when he translates all these verses as if they were intended to define nāṭya.1

From one of the discussions conducted by Abhinava2 it is clear that the verse which we are going to take as the one intended to define nāṭya, is accepted as such by ancient scholars, that is to say we have the support from at least a section, if not all, of the ancient authors. The particular verse runs thus:

‘yo’yaṃ svabhāvo lokasya sukhaduḥkha-samanvitah

so’ṅgādyabhinayopeto nāṭya mityabhidhīyate’3

Abhinava explains it in a way peculiar to him. His interpretation of it is clear to the scholarly world and if the meaning of this verse according to Abhinava’s interpretation is to be shown here for the

1 See E.T. of N.Ś., Vol. I, p. 16.

2 A.B., Vol. I, p. 175.

3 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. I, Sl. 122, p. 43.

Page 64

benefit of the people who are not acquainted with his approach,

it will call for a detailed explanation of fundamental questions. Space

does not permit us to enter into such lengthy exposition. Moreover

it would hamper the continuity of our discussion. Suffice it to men-

tion that to Abhinava nāṭya means rasa (nāṭya eva rasaḥ); not only

this, even a śravyakāvya (poetry or epic), in his opinion, can evoke

rasa, only because it contains dramatic quality. With great vigour

he argues in several places that nāṭya is rasa. The present verse is

one of those places where he attempts to affirm his theory. The

meaning of this verse, as he explains it, may be expressed in one

sentence: Rasa is called nāṭya. We cannot accept this theory because

such a theory cannot be established on the basis of Bharata’s verses,

unless they are submitted to unnecessary scholastic twists and ham-

mered heavily.

What this verse actually means is as follows: This very nature

of the world, mingled with joy and grief or pleasure and pain, is

called nāṭya when it is conveyed through the acts of communication

that belong to the body and the like (i.e. through āngika, sāttvika,

vācika and āhārya abhinayas). To put it in an another way, the every-

day experience of the world, the simultaneous experience of joy

and grief, is nāṭya, when it is conveyed through the different abhi-

nayas.

We have seen at the outset that medieval theorists, like Dhanañ-

jaya, define nāṭya to be rasāśraya. Such a definition really cannot

distinguish nāṭya from similar art (sajātīya-vastu), nrtya itself. They

distinguish nāṭya from nrtya by defining the latter to be expressive

of bhāva (bhāvāśraya), but we have seen how absurd it is to define

the latter as bhāvāśraya. Similarly their definition cannot distinguish

also from several dissimilar things (vijātīya-vastu), like śravya-kāvya,

poem; sangīta, music; citra, painting; bhāskarya, sculpture, and so on,

because all these are quite capable of expressing rasa in a highly

effective way. We should also note that the medieval theorists

want to define nrtya as bhāvāśraya and because of this, in order to

show the contrast, they call nāṭya rasāśraya. But apart from this

they also mention nāṭya to be avasthānukrti, i.e. a representation of

the different conditions of a given individual (anukārya) who is

either known from older sources or an imaginary person as the

case may be. But the fact that representation is not in anyway

Page 65

48 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

exclusive to nāṭya alone, for nrtya also is such, is accepted by these theorists themselves.

If that is so, what would be the special characteristics in nāṭya according to this theory is rasaśraya, i.e. to be expressive of rasa (if this phrase is not literally translated). But this factor, as we have seen, is not capable of giving a precise understanding of nāṭya. In fact their explanation of nāṭya as avasthānukrti is based on Bharata’s exposition itself, for example as is seen in the first hemistich of the verse quoted above. Rather this is of an explanatory nature, and is yet incapable of giving a comprehensive idea as Bharata’s verse does. The difference between these two methods will be clear if we see how Bharata treats the subject.

Generally speaking, in the later ages exponents of different theories or writers on a similar subject find it easy to define a thing on the basis of the result it leads to or induces. Rasa, being a result of fine arts, is taken to be such a centre, on the basis of which definitions are made. Apart from this method, one can also define a thing on the basis of the means employed or on the basis of both ends and means.

Bharata takes not only the experience of human beings but that of the world as a whole and considers the means of conveying it in an effective way as the basis of his definition. To put it simply, he takes the means and defines nāṭya on their basis. Over and above these, stands the emotional aspect on the strength of which he gives the definition. In this he is unlike the later writers who deal with things purely on dry scholastic considerations. Not only in the case of this definition but in the study of the whole of the Nāṭyaśāstra, to neglect the emotional aspect is to be guilty of incomplete understanding, for the simple reason that Bharata speaks of nāṭya from a very different level. For Bharata nāṭya is not a profession, nor a scholastic curiosity, it is life itself. Owing to this, the exposition of the Nāṭyaśāstra, at least in places, is highly poetic, with a language direct, simple and effective. The place in which the definition of nāṭya occurs is a masterpiece.

To continue, we have seen that in the episode it is said that the first performance of nāṭya took place on the occasion of dhvajamahā (flag festival). In that festival demons or dānavas also were present. The play staged at that time was Amṛtamaṁthana (churning of the ocean

Page 66

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NĀTYA

for ambrosia), i.e. it is based on this theme.1 Naturally dānavas

present at that place took great offence and began to create obstacles.

There was fighting again and interruption of the play. Somehow

the devas managed to get over the obstacles and they requested

Brahma first to warn the dānavas peacefully, otherwise they would

settle the matter even by force.

Brahma questioned the dānavas as to why they had taken offence.

Virūpākṣa, the leader of the dānavas, came forward and said that

he had created this at the request of the gods, but this was malicious

and scandalous (pratyādeśa or khalikāra) to them. This was not expected

from him, since they too, like the devas, came from him, the one

source of all things. Here Brahma described nāṭya to the dānāvas to

make them realise its real nature. It is impossible, at least for us,

to translate this portion preserving its original beauty. But let us

try to give at least a bare idea of it.

O dānavas, get rid of your anger and be free from aversion. Nāṭya was created

by me in such a way as to show its association with deeds and ideas, so that it

will act as a guide to realise the good and the bad in the case of you people too,

as with the devas. Do not think that the devas and you alone were kept in view

at the time of its creation, do realise that not only you and the devas but also

the whole world is involved in it. Because of this, you will be able to see in

it sometimes righteousness (dharma), sometimes play, sometimes wealth (artha),

sometimes tranquillity, sometimes laughter, sometimes fight, sometimes pas-

sion or desire, sometimes slaughter and so on. It will be a source of different

things for the people who have various inclinations—such as, righteousness

(dharma) for those who desire it, passion for those who are inclined that way,

a check to those who are undisciplined, restraint to those who are disciplined,

boldness to those who are meek or impotent, energy or enthusiasm, to those

who are brave and full of self-respect, wisdom to those who are stupid, skill

to those who are learned, pastime to the rulers, stability to those who suffer

1 This is a mythological story. Once upon a time devas and dānavas, children

of two sisters, yet rivals to each other, churned the ocean in order to get the

amṛta, ambrosia, and after a great struggle they succeeded. But each party wanted

to get it only for itself and this led to a fight. At this juncture the devas approached

Viṣṇu to help them and he, agreeing, entered the spot in the disguise of a marvel-

lously beautiful young girl and turned the dānavas stupid. She asked both the

parties not to fight as she would distribute the amṛta to them alike. They sat

in order in opposite rows. She began to give the ambrosia first to the devas

and she managed to distribute it in such a way that it was soon exhausted.

Stupified with the beauty of the girl, the dānavas were not in a position to

realize what was happening and at last became fools, beauty’s victims.

Page 67

50 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

from grief, wealth to those who want it, will to those who are depressed and

so on. Thus nāṭya is full of all kinds of ideas, is based on many and varied

situations, and created to be a representation of the behaviour or action

(vṛtta) of the world. It is based on the actions of the men who are great (uttama),

common (madhyama), as well as low (adhama). Being instructive, it yields

stability, pastime and happiness. It will provide in proper time rest or relief

to those who are immersed in austerity (tapasvin), to those who have suffered

from grief, or been struck with calamities and are exhausted. It will yield

virtue, fame, life, good, intellect, knowledge of the world, etc. There is no

knowledge, no skill, no learning, no art, no meditation, no deed, which is

not found in the nāṭya. Thus nāṭya is a representation of the whole world

(sapta-dvīpa). So, o dānavas, you need not be angry against the devas over

this, i.e. nāṭya. Because this nāṭya, created by me, is a representation of the

whole world, it reveals the truths to the devas as well as to you dānavas, and

to kings, householders, even to brahmaṛṣis.'1

Through the mouth of Brahma, Bharata defines nāṭya in one

verse after this discourse, rather with this as background, the verse

which has already been quoted above and explained. To repeat,

the everyday experience of the world, an experience mingled with

joy and grief, is the nāṭya when it is conveyed through the different

abhinayas. Here the different abhinayas mean all the four, vācika,

āṅgika, sāttvika and āhārya.

This definition includes everything that nāṭya needs, all the prob-

lems that centre round the drama are implicit in it. Let us consider

them one by one.

Here the experience itself is said to be nāṭya, the experience which

is abstract involves other things as well. Experience also brings an

idea of instruction into our mind, because 'experience' teaches

(upadiśati), for otherwise what would be the use of it? Secondly,

bliss also is included in this, because an experience causes some other

experience, but the resulting experience cannot be the same as the

one which causes it, because the former manifests itself in our

hearts through a special medium. Thus this expression brings these

aspects — instruction and bliss — into our understanding.

The idea of representation also comes into our mind when we

hear the word abhinaya. But the latter cannot be explained as repre-

sentation, when it is used in the sense of one's presence or working

or acting in the place of someone else. Through some act or actions

1 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. I, pp. 34-43.

Page 68

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NATYA

alone it is possible for one to behave or act like someone else. Here

the acts needed to behave or act like someone else, are our four

abhinayas. This shows clearly that abhinaya and representation are

not identical, indeed, they are altogether different things. Owing

to a complete dependence of representation on abhinaya, the sense

of representation also comes into our mind when we hear the word

abhinaya. In other words, anukrti and abhinaya should not be under-

stood to be identical.

Apart from this there is another point that should be noted in

connection with abhinaya. Suppose that a nata without having a

bow and arrow in the hands shows some actions with kapittha and

khatakamukha in the left and right hands respectively, we at once

understand that he is shooting with an arrow. What does it mean

now? It means that he communicates to us the sense of shooting

with an arrow, but he does not actually show the real thing, and he

cannot, because he has no real things to show real shooting, moreover

it is not necessary. Even without imitating Rāma or a hunter, the

naṭa can represent them. This proves two things—one is that re-

presentation is not imitation and, secondly, that abhinaya is not

representation. This is why in the beginning while explaining

abhinaya, we have said that abhinaya is an act of communication of

the performer; it is not representation.1

As we have now seen what abhinaya really means, it is better to

think of the related problems in terms of the significance of abhinaya

rather than translating it at first as acting and thinking of it in terms

of the meaning associated with an alien word and culture. This

method would be proper not only in the case of abhinaya, but also

in the case of every technical term. To neglect the cultural matrix

is to fall into needless error.

1 Generally by acting or action we understand one's unreal action, unreal

in the sense that the action seen in one is not that which is caused in one's

life by a given situation. Or we take it to mean to behave like someone else.

In both these ways we understand it as an action which has no reference to

or is not related to the life of one who shows it. But it should not be understood

as an imitation or pretence or mimicry, since such is not the thing to be con-

veyed by abhinaya in Indian dramaturgy. So even if we commonly use action,

we should use it in the sense that the performer's action which is intended to

communicate something.

Page 69

52 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Further it is worthwhile to mention the following: The meaning of abhinaya, as pointed out, is the bringing forth of the artha, things, into the consciousness of the spectators. But by artha a number of people seem to take into consideration rasa and bhāva also, sometimes nothing but these. But it would be wrong to think of it as a factor which brings rasa and bhāva directly. If it is capable of bringing rasa and bhāva directly into the hearts of the spectators, then all persons, without exception, would have been able to relish it and that too in equal degree, because the nāṭa makes no discrimination while he communicates things. But the fact is different. Among the people present at the performance of a given drama, some may be able to relish rasa comparatively less than others, while it is a possibility that at least some persons may be there who are not at all capable of relishing it. This proves that abhinaya does not or cannot bring rasa directly into the hearts of sahrdayas. In fact, the nature of rasa is such. Rasa cannot be brought from outside and poured into one’s heart. Essentially rasa manifests from within. So what abhinaya does is that it furnishes the necessary artha, things or the sense of things, by which, if other conditions are favourable, rasa may manifest itself from within one’s heart. To elaborate it a little, abhinaya furnishes artha to the sahrdaya most of which will work as vibhāva and anubhāva which are required for rasa-manifestation, but abhinaya itself is neither vibhāva nor anubhāva.

That being its nature, abhinaya works as a means to communicate the experience of the world. In other words, the experience of the world, as noted or observed in life, is not nāṭya; it is called nāṭya only when it is communicated or intimated by means of abhinaya. When there is an abhinaya there is representation. Without abhinaya there is no drama. So there is no nāṭya without representation, that is to say that in no circumstances, even as a variety, is there no non-representational drama. Representation is a concomitant with drama or nāṭya.

Thus Bharata’s definition of nāṭya includes all these facts and problems. According to Bharata nāṭya is the experience of the world only when it is represented, in order to provide bliss and instruction as well, by means of acts of communication which do not belong to everyday life.

Page 70

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NRTTA

Nrtta

Bharata defines nrtta in the fourth chapter of the Nātyaśāstra where its technique is explained. He defines it through the mouth of Siva, i.e. as if it was said by Siva. The definition runs as follows:

mayāpidaṃ smṛtaṃ nṛttaṃ sandhyākāleṣu nrtyatā

nānākarana-samyuktai raṅgahārair vibhūṣitam1

If those matters that are connected with the episode are left out and then the definition of nrtta is translated, it would be as follows: 'Nrtta is of aṅgahāras which are made of karanas.' This definition would be sufficient to give a comprehensive idea about nrtta. But to realize the comprehensiveness of this definition it is necessary to know about aṅgahāras and karanas, which are dealt with at length in the Nātyaśāstra itself. Any detailed description or individual description of aṅgahāras and karanas would not fall within our plan, so let us see according to their general definition what are aṅgahāras and what are karanas.

Bharata says that aṅgahāras are made of karanas. But Abhinava explains this compound word, aṅgahāra in two ways. Firstly, he says that aṅgahāra is 'sending the limbs (of the body) from a given place to the other proper one'. Secondly, he gives the explanation, hāra means 'of Siva' i.e. the play (prayoga, lit. performance) of Siva, so aṅgahāra means the play of Siva which is to be done (nirvartyya) by limbs2 (of the body). In other words, the performance solely based on the movements of different limbs of the body as done by Siva, i.e. the method in which Siva practises it, is aṅgahāra. Apparently the latter explanation is a fanciful one. It would appear to be so in view also of the fact that Siva himself, according to the account given by Bharata, uses the word, aṅgahāra.

1N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 89. Here nṛttam is an amendment for nrtyam which is available in print. In this context, which is concerned with nrtta alone, the reading nrtyam would be incorrect and moreover we have discussed this matter previously and mentioned that originally such a word does not occur anywhere in this work. So in no sense the word nrtyam can be taken to be correct. The Chowkhāmbā edition reads nrtta (see p. 28).

2A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 90, ll. 18-20. For the former explanation also see p. 21, ll. 20-1 where the reading prāpta seems incorrect, the proper word might be prāpaṇa.

Page 71

54 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Perhaps Abhinava gives this explanation based on the traditional account that Śiva practises nrtta. Whatever may be the reasons for it, this latter explanation seems to be fanciful. It would be desirable to confine ourselves to the former explanation, i.e. ‘sending the limbs of the body from a given place to the other proper one.’

Bharata defines karaṇa in this way: hastapādasamāyogo nrttasya karaṇam bhavet.1 This means that the perfect composition of hands and feet is called karaṇa. Unless the other limbs accompany the hands and feet, it is not anatomically possible to keep them in a perfect composition. So this definition implies that other limbs too must follow them. Although this matter is not verbally mentioned in the definition itself, in fact there is no necessity, yet this point is not neglected. Just before expounding each and every karaṇa with its exclusive process Bharata says that he is going to deal with the ‘possible’ movement of hands and feet, the movement that is accompanied by waist, sides, head, chest, back and abdomen2 (i.e. accompanied by their movement). Perhaps keeping all this in mind, Abhinava, while commenting on this definition, explains karaṇa to be a compact and uninterrupted single unit of act of different limbs such as śākhā, aṅga, upāṅga, pārśva, katī, ūru, jaṅghā,

1 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 92. Here too we have amended nrtya as nrtta. The Chowkhāmbā edition reads nrtta as it does in the case of the definition of nrtta (see p. 29).

2 ‘hastapādapracārantu katipārśvorus*amyutam urahprṣṭodaropetam vakṣyamāṇam nibodhata’. N.S., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 96. *Here the reading ūru does not seem correct, since it is included in the expression pāda. It seems proper that it should be śirah or one of its synonyms, as no such word occurs elsewhere in this verse and it must be present in some place. We think that the reading katipārśvaśiroyutam would be necessary. This assumption seems plausible when Abhinava’s explanation of the definition of karaṇa is noticed. Apart from this Bharata himself prescribes in some karaṇas like lalita, nāgāpasarpita, gaṅgāva-taraṇa etc., as to what kind of śiras should be used. Commenting on Sārṅga-deva’s use of ādi in the definition of karaṇa, Kalliṅātha correctly says sirovakṣaḥ-pārśvakaṭinām, but falls into error while saying ‘bāhujan்ghādinām’. So we gave our explanation according to this assumption, rejecting the reading ūru.

We have pointed out in one of our unpublished papers, viz., ‘Hastapra-cāras: Three or Five?, that Bharata uses words like pracāra, karaṇa, etc., to mean different kinds of movements. Here in this verse too the word pracāra does not mean simply movement but anatomically possible movement. That is why we have explained it in the body of the text as ‘possible’ movement.

Page 72

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NRTTA

caraṇa, and so on, the act which starts from a given place and terminates after reaching the other proper one.1

Both aṅgahāra and karaṇa, being acts leading to the perfect composition of different limbs or body may at the first sight seem to be one and the same. From a remark of his,2 it seems that Abhinava too tends to consider them to be, in one sense or the other, quite similar. That some kind of similarity between these two exists, is inevitable for the simple reason that aṅgahāra is composed of karaṇas. Similarly nrtta and aṅgahāras may seem to be identical, almost for the same reason. Here it may be pointed out that nrtta and aṅgahāras cannot be one and the same. Nrtta is said to be composed of aṅgahāras, but it is not said that aṅgahāras themselves are nrtta. So there should not be any doubt about the fact that nrtta is an entity.

Also aṅgahāra and karaṇa are not one and the same, even if the former is made of the latter and both of them led to a perfect composition of the body. Aṅgahāra is mainly made of karaṇas. But they need recakas also, which are a particular type of movements of the four limbs—neck, hand, waist and foot. Recakas fulfil a two-fold purpose—beautification and filling up the gaps among the movements in such a way as the total movements of aṅgahāra may precisely fit in or be adjusted to a given tāla. That is why Bharata says ‘nānākaraṇasamyuktān vyākhyāsyāmi sarecakān.’3 This clearly shows that aṅgahāra is conceived as distinct from karaṇas, i.e. not simply as a totality of a given number of karaṇas. Thus though both of them — aṅgahāra and karaṇa — have much in common, yet each possesses a distinctive character of its own.

Another fact to be pointed out here is that karaṇas themselves are made of cārīs, nrttahastas and also sthānas, as clearly stated in the preliminary remarks on karaṇas.4 Now the question is which of these — aṅgahāras, karaṇas, cārī-sthāna-nrttahastas — should be considered to be the basic unit of nrtta? In this matter Abhinava says that the combination of two karaṇas, called nrttamātrkā, is the basic unit of nrtta. Obviously he depends upon the literal meaning of the

1 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 92, ll. 21–3.

2 ibid. p. 92, ll. 16–17. His other similar remark (p. 171, ll. 16–17) also needs a careful study.

3 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 90.

4 ibid. p. 97.

Page 73

56 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

word, nrttamātrkā. He answers the question why it should be considered to be a basic unit by saying that until the two karanas are performed we will not have a sense of nrtta and from the performance of the second karaṇa onwards we will have the sense that one is dancing1 (nrtyati).

But this view does not seem to be quite precise, since the sense that one has danced may not come into our minds if we witness the performance of two karanas only. The sense that one is dancing may very well come into our minds when the performance of the single karaṇa is witnessed. Apart from these reasons it is not possible to take nrttamātrkā to be the basic unit, if the text available in print is relied upon, even though the literal meaning of this word might tempt one to draw such a conclusion. Nrttamātrkā is nothing but a name for the combination of two karanas, as kalāpaka, maṇḍaka and saṅghātaka are the names of the combinations of three, four and five karanas respectively.2 When the word nrttamātrkā thus used does not mean the basic unit, it is to be pointed out that there is no

1 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 93, ll. 17–18. These lines need correction and V. Rāghavan has done it on the basis of Jāyaṇa who, like Sārṅgadeva, follows Abhinava in several matters. But Rāghavan himself has been a little mistaken while explaining these matters (See Brahmavidyā, a quarterly Journal published from Adyar Library, Vol. XVIII, parts 3–4, pp. 197–8).

2 ‘dve nrttakarane caiva bhavato nrttamātrkā dvābhyāṃ triś caturbhir vāpyangaahārastu mātṛbhiḥ tribhiḥ kalāpakam caiva caturbhir mandakam bhavet pañcaiva karaṇāni syuḥ saṅghātaka iti smrtaḥ sadbhir vāi saptabhir vāpi astabhir navabhis tathā karaṇai rikha samyuktā aṅgahārāḥ prakīrtitāḥ’.

N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 93.

In the second line of this passage on the one hand and on the other in the fifth and sixth lines, aṅgahāras are explained, but there is some difference in the accounts given in them. According to the second line an aṅgahāra would be composed of two or three or four nrttamātrkas, i.e. four, six and eight karanas, thus no odd number occurs here. But according to the fifth and sixth lines aṅgahāra may be composed of karanas numbering six, seven, eight or nine and so on, that is to say, according to this account the odd number is permissible, but such is not the case with the former. Also, the former account admits aṅgahāra to be composed of four karanas, but not so the latter. The latter account admits aṅgahāra to be also composed of nine karanas, but never the former. So, either of these accounts must be unreliable.

In this particular place Abhinava is silent about the latter account. Nor

Page 74

verbal mention of the basic unit in the Nāṭyaśāstra. So we have to come to the conclusion about the basic unit of nṛtta depending on the nature of nṛtta and its properties. Although nṛtta is made of aṅgahāras, yet they need not be taken to be basic units. They may be the units. Cārīs, nṛttahastas and sthānas cannot individually be taken to be basic units either, since they do not individually characterise nṛtta. If they are said to be so collectively, that means karaṇa, for other than karaṇa they have no separate collective form of their own. In reality, karaṇa is the very factor that characterises not only nṛtta but also aṅgahāra out of which nṛtta is made. Karaṇa as the pattern or type characterises nṛtta. Nṛtta is built up by the clever arrangement of these patterns with a process similar to that of architecture. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the fact that the basic unit of nṛtta is karaṇa.

does he touch kalāpaka, mandaka and saṅghātaka. From this it is difficult to draw the conclusion that he does not know of such a text. But Sārṅgadeva mentions kalāpaka and the rest to be expounded by others, implicitly by others than Bharata. Perhaps Abhinava’s silence on the issue is the reason for his taking such a view. Again the point to note is that Sārṅgadeva’s commentators, Siṅgabhūpāla and Kallinātha, take different attitudes while explaining nṛttamātr̥kā (S.R., Vol. IV, Ch. 7, pp. 252–6).

As these accounts differ, it is necessary to come to a conclusion about the problem as to which of these two accounts is reliable. Taking vā of caturbhirvā Abhinava says that variation in number is permissible, but it is not clear whether he means variation in karaṇas or nṛttamātr̥kās. His followers Sārṅgadeva and Jayaḥa take it to mean the variation in karaṇas, but it would prove wrong when we consider the original text as available. According to the original, nṛttamātr̥kās may vary. Implicitly that variation to should follow within the limits— two, three and four. This may be presumed because the definite numbers are mentioned and there is no mention of words like adhika. For some reason or the other even this expression is interpreted to mean ‘more than four’, aṅgahāra, according to this account, must always be composed of an even number of karaṇas, because here aṅgahāra is explained in terms of nṛttamātr̥kā which is always a combination of two karaṇas. Thus the difference in these two accounts is inevitable.

Examination of individual aṅgahāras may throw some light on this. There is no aṅgahāra comprising four karaṇas (or two nṛttamātr̥kās as the former account speaks of ) and among the aṅgahāras there are several which are composed of both an even and an odd number of karaṇas, which fact the former account does not admit. There are also such aṅgahāras which are composed of more than eight karaṇas which fact again the former account does not accept. (Abhinava too clearly admits these facts. See Vol. I, p. 164, ll. 12–18). All these facts

Page 75

58 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Thus we have seen that karana is the basic unit of nrtta, karana which is the perfect composition of hands and feet, in other words, of the whole body. Later theorists or commentators try to describe karanas as the means of conveying certain things, arthas, as proved by Abhinava's explanation of lina, svastikarecita, mandalasvastika,1 and so on. This tendency comes into practice in the later ages, but it is not found in the Nāṭyaśāstra as is quite clear from our discussion about the origin of nrtya. So far as the Nāṭyaśāstra goes, in its definition or description of karanas, or even nrtta, there is no mention at all of representation. This obviously means that nrtta is a non-representational art. Non-representational need not mean non-figurative, as is sometimes meant in the modern age in connection with arts like painting, that is to say that nrtta is non-representational but obviously not non-figurative. In fact it is the art which is solely dependent on the form, that is to say its life is in the formal beauty. This is the very reason for defining karana to be a perfect

go in favour of the latter account. Although Abhinava seems to accept the second line of the above passage, it is grammatically incorrect, as all the numeral adjectives are not in the feminine gender while the noun is. These adjectives, as they are, should refer to karana, but there is no such word near them. Metre does not allow the changing of these adjectives into the feminine gender. Of course both the K.M. and Chowkhāmbā editions read dvābhyāṁ tri-caturābhir vāpyangahārastru mārthibhil1 (p. 38 and p. 29 respectively) and grammatically this reading is correct. But angahāras, as mentioned above, do not strictly follow this definition. Apart from this, it interrupts the topic. If the second line is rejected, then we get the meaning from this passage that the combination of two, three, four and five karanas are respectively called nrttamātrkā, kalāpaka, mandaka, and sanghātaka while the combination of karanas numbering either six, seven, eight, nine and so on is called angahāra. As a meaning it is quite logical. If so, this goes against Abhinava's interpretation of nrttamātrkā as the basic unit of nrtta, because in this context it is not mentioned to be so. Still the utility of these kalāpaka and others, except angahāra, is to be found out by further investigation. If this whole account of naming kalāpaka, mandaka, etc. is to be rejected on the ground that their utility is not clear to us, then it is true in the case of the first and second lines of the above passage, since they do not fit into this context. Thus, in any case, Abhinava's interpretation of nrttamātrkā is not acceptable. Further researches may prove whether there was originally a verbal mention about the basic unit of nrtta in the N.Ś. For the present it would not be incorrect to accept karana itself to be a basic unit of nrtta, depending on the nature of nrtta and its properties.

1 A.B., Vol. I, pp. 101-3

Page 76

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NRTTA

composition of the whole body. Unless each and every karana is

individually illustrated it is not possible to point out how a perfect

composition is achieved and the elements that are required for such a

composition. The nature of our present work does not permit us

to enter into all such details, but attention may be drawn to certain

vital remarks in the Nāṭyaśāstra the significance of which does not

come into prominence owing to the superficiality of criticism and

bookishness now prevailing.

The most important things among such remarks are two and these

are concerned with what is called sauṣṭhava and caturaśra. Sauṣṭhava

is a state of body characterised by the raised chest (samunnatam uraḥ),

elbow and head of the deltoid falling in a line (kūrparo’nsaśiras tathā

[samaḥ?]) and waist and ears falling in a line (kaṭī karnasamā). This is

to say that one should keep the ears and waist in one line and elbows

and head of the deltoid in one line while the chest is to be kept

raised in order to attain sauṣṭhava. This is a description of keeping

the different limbs in given places. Apart from this, sauṣṭhava

demands also a given method in keeping the body. In sauṣṭhava

the body should be free from shaking or tremor in the postures

(acañcala), it should also be free from curves or bent or drooping

(akubja, lit., not dwarfed), also it should be steady or at rest in

whatever posture it may be (sanna = svaviśrāntaparinata). Further,

says Bharata, ‘śobhā sarvaiva nityam hi sauṣṭhavam sanupāśritā/nahi

sauṣṭhavahīnāṅgaḥ śobhate nāṭyanṛttayoḥ’1, i.e. the whole beauty

always rests on the sauṣṭhava, so the performer never shines without

having this. Cāturyaśra of aṅga, squarish body, is that when the

1 N.Ś., Vol. II, Ch. 10, pp. 114-15. In the printed text the description of

sauṣṭhava occurs also in Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 97; but Abhinava comments on it

in Ch. 10 and it seems that that is the proper place. In this place there is one

expression ‘nātyuccam calapādam ca’ and there are also some variants here.

We are neither able to derive a satisfactory meaning from it nor even to amend

it. S. R. too is not helpful here. Further, instead of ‘kaṭī karnasamā’, S.R.

reads ‘kaṭī jāṇusamā’ and both the commentators on it, Siṅgabhūpāla and

Kallinātha, create confusion in this place, by explaining it incorrectly (see

Vol. IV, pp. 321-2). Here jāṇusamā does not seem proper reading, because such

a condition is not possible in most of the karanas. Whereas in most cases the

waist and ears can be in one line, so it is better to adhere to the reading karna-

samā. It should be noted here that we have left the expression nātyuccam cala-

pādam ca unexplained in the body of our work, as it needs further investigation.

Page 77

60 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

chest is raised and the hands remain at the waist and the umbilicus or navel as in the vaiṣṇava-sthāna.1 Although here the position of the hands is also described, yet it is the chest that is the essential feature in a square composition. The position of the hands is to be decided in relation to the chest, that is to say that even the hands in accordance with the situation may not remain at the waist and navel, and still caturaśrya composition is achieved, provided that their position is decided in relation with the chest in such a way that a square composition may still prevail. This can be said because in most of the karaṇas in which the position of the hands will remain elsewhere, caturaśra composition is essential. Perhaps with this idea in mind Abhinava, commenting on one of the nrttahastas—caturaśrau—says that in order to obtain caturaśrya one should keep khatakāmukhasthastas at the distance of eight anggulas from the chest while they are in eight anggulas distance from each other and while the heads of the deltoids and elbows are kept in one line like a rod of the balance.2 Thus in nrtta as expounded by Bharata what is most important is the square composition. Abhinava clearly says that the vital principle of the body in dance is based on the square, i.e. square composition (caturaśryamūlam nrttasya jīvitam)3. He goes to the extent of saying that sauṣṭhava is meant to attain the caturaśrya (‘sauṣṭhavam yadarṭham tatsarvasāmānyabhūtam caturaśryam’)4. It may not be out of place to warn the reader that one need not take this stress on square composition to be a denial of other shapes in the bodily compositions of nrtta. It has been already pointed out that this square composition is prescribed mainly in relation with the chest. So it is not in any way a denial of other compositions. As a matter of fact, all varieties of compositions—square, triangle, circle, and so on do exist in this school of nrtta.

Apart from the nature of individual karaṇas, which subject we do not treat here, the above remarks on certain general features, like sauṣṭhava and caturaśrya, would do for the present, to give a general idea of the fact that nrtta rests solely on formal beauty. The formal beauty is obtained through the perfect composition of the

1 ibid.

2 A.B., Vol. II, Ch. 9, p. 71.

3 ibid.

4 ibid. Vol. II, Ch. 10, p. 115.

Page 78

whole body. The composition involves all the geometrical qualities and other things. There must be a balance, other than the equilibrium of the body, i.e. the balance of masses. There must be a relation, the relation of a given limb to the other which is either following it in the same direction or playing the counterpart in a different direction. There must be a flow of harmonious and clearcut lines. There must be ease even in the difficult postures. (Here the difficult postures refer to those which are cultivated, i.e. those which are not seen in everyday life.) The ease comes only when we do not try to violate the anatomical principles. Above all, there must be movement in the whole body. All these qualities must be present in every fraction of the time in which karanas take place, karanas which are made of sthānas (states) on the one hand and cariṣ and nrttahastas on the other (which are nothing but the movements of feet and hands). Owing to the fact that every basic unit of nrtta, viz. karaṇa is well thought out it is also complete in itself. So there is no need to mention that nrtta is complete in itself in every place and every time. You can perform it in the courtyard of a royal palace or in a village street, in a huge and massive royal auditorium or a narrow and humble hut, in a well-planned theatre or by the sea shore, it makes no difference. You may perform it in the morning, noon, evening, twilight, night or spring, winter, summer, it makes no difference. You may arrange it in a group or singly, it makes no difference. You may have make-up or even may not have, it makes no difference. This is because it is complete in itself, independent of accidents.

Thus nrtta needs almost all of the qualities that architecture does. In fact it is a kind of architecture. Nrtta as expounded by Bharata is a moving Konārka temple of unmutilated form. The difference between them is that this does not embody a Sūrya statue, but Rasa. But we have seen in the beginning that medieval theorists somehow came to the conclusion that nrtta is devoid of rasa and bhāva. Nobody has ever tried to question that view why nrtta should be devoid of rasa except to mention that it is an aṅcavikṣepa requiring only layu and tāla. Even if this description, of course it is not precise, is accepted as it is, there is no reason why it should be devoid of rasa. If it be said that this is so because of its non-representational nature, then what about architecture, or music, i.e. such

Page 79

62 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

forms of it as are not accompanied by words, like rāgālāpa or instrumental music? Are they also, then, devoid of rasa? But such a view is, on the face of it, absurd and untenable. Then what was the sin that nrtta had committed, so that it should be excluded, ex cathedra, from the range of rasa?

The establishment of the rasa theory is an achievement for all times. But it is a fact that though from ancient times the method of its application in regard to the representational arts has been profusely discussed, in connection with non-representational arts it has been much, if not completely, neglected. In other words, the experience of the supra-mental state, attained through the non-representational arts, is not well explained in our aesthetic theory. Somehow the Indian mind is more attracted by the representational arts. There it has studied exclusively and exhaustively. This is perhaps the reason which leads the medieval theorists to declare that nrtta is devoid of rasa. Whatever may be the reasons for this, it is, no doubt, a dangerous and debatable conclusion. It is a pity that such a contemporary champion of Indian culture as Ananda K. Coomaraswamy should be content to repeat it.1

Nrtta, like nrtya, was, as we have already seen, classified in the post-Bharata period as tāṇḍava and lāsya. There is no need to cite authority for this, as this is universally accepted. Similarly tāṇḍava is described by all the writers as made of vigorous (uddhata) aṅgahāras while lāsya is made of soft (sukumāra or madhura) aṅgahāras. In other words, nrtta is of two kinds, vigorous (tāṇḍava) and soft (lāsya). Obviously these words, uddhata and lāsya, refer to the nature of physical movements. What is the reason for the difference in their nature? Ultimately one has to rely on the feeling, as an external manifestation of which physical movements appear, that is to say that the difference is due to the nature or the quality of the feeling by which physical movements are variously caused. Other than this there can be no explanation for the classification of nrtta.

One may, however, argue that this classification is based on the nature of the physical movements of men and womenfolk. Some authors say that tāṇḍava and lāsya are to be performed by men and women respectively. In fact, this is the general tendency, of even

1 M.G., p. 22.

Page 80

EARLIEST KNOWN THEORIES: NRTTA

authors like Śārṅgadeva and Kumbha-Rāṇā.1 It is true that the

movements of womenfolk are by nature softer than that of men.

But this is purely relative, and it can hardly be denied that there

can be some movements of womenfolk which are more vigorous

than other movements of their own. Similarly some movements

of men may also be softer. Thus, it would be meaningless to say

or restrict that women alone should show the softer movements and

men restrict themselves to vigorous movements. One might as well

argue that the deportment of the women ought to be soft even in

their angry moods and that men should be vigorous even in their

grief or love! It is wrong to state categorically that lāsya should be

performed only by women and tāṇḍava by men only. If there

is some difference in the nature of the movements of men and

women, that is a separate fact, but it cannot be taken as the basis

of the classification of nṛtta. This is further proved by the accepted

classification in the case of nṛtya which the medievalists admit to be

expressive of bhāvas. Now either they have to accept that women

should not show anger, or vigorous movements even in the moods

like anger should find no place in women’s dictionary. The same

would apply to men, mutatis mutandis, in their moods like grief or

love. To accept either of these restrictions would be false and

fanciful. But picking up some medieval statements, many Kathākalī

and Bharatanāṭyam artists and so called critics, boasting of their arts

to be vigorous and soft respectively, have elevated this error to the

rank of a genuine distinction. This is based on ignorance and shows a

poor view of the possibilities of the respective arts.

If this classification should thus be based on the quality of feeling

alone, we are bound to question the attempt on the part of medieval

theorists to classify nṛtta as tāṇḍava and lāsya. For have they not

denied the fact that nṛtta can evoke rasa? If this classification cannot

be sacrificed, it ought also to be accepted that nṛtta can evoke rasa

and bhāvas as perfectly as nāṭya and nṛtya.

Rasas are broadly classified into two groups on the basis of the

quality of feeling: draiṇbhāva, the soft and melting state, and

dīpti, radiance or brightness. In the Indian aesthetic theory only

three guṇas or qualities are accepted, at least that is so from the eight

century A.D., and two of these are called mādhurya and ojas. The

1 S.R., Vol. IV, p. 3. S. Rāja, Vol. I, p. 30.

Page 81

64 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

quality natural to rasas like śṛṅgāra, karuṇa, and so on is mādhurya, and

of rasas like vīra, raudra, etc., the natural quality is dīpti. These are

precisely the qualities also known as sukumāra and uddhata, a variation

of lāsya and tāṇḍava, in other words. According to these qualities

of feeling the external behaviour or the movements vary. It is

quite natural that in the rasas like śṛṅgāra, karuṇa etc., the physical

movements should tend to become soft while in the rasas such as raudra,

vīra, they become vigorous, irrespective of sex. It is not claimed

that this is what Bharata said. We have already stated, more than once,

that there is no classification of either nṛtta or nṛtya in the Nāṭyaśāstra.

These matters are being discussed here only to suggest the precise

principle on which nṛtta and nṛtya can be, if desired, logically or

legitimately classified. The medieval description of tāṇḍava and

lāsya, to be made of vigorous and soft movements respectively, does

not explain them fully or properly, because it leaves the real principle

behind them untouched. The real principle behind this classification

should be the guṇa, or quality of feeling.

Medieval theorists deny that nṛtta can evoke rasa and they say

that it is śobhāhetu. This opinion is supposed to be based on Bharata’s

statements. As such they deserve examination.

'yadā prāptyartha marthānāṃ tajñai rabhinayah kṛtah

kasmāt nṛttam kṛtam hyetat kaṃ svabhāva mapeksate

na gītakārthasambaddham nacāpyarthasya bhāvakam

kasmān nṛttam kṛtam hyetat gīteṣvāsāriteṣu ca'1

These verses contain the questions about the nature and purpose

of nṛtta and are posed by some ṛṣis who approached Bharata to know

more about nāṭya. In the Nāṭyaśāstra an important topic is usually

introduced in this manner, that is in the form of a dialogue.

Abhinava accepts that such dialogues do not refer to an actual fact but

Bharata himself writes in that fashion (probably because that was the

convention). He says this repeatedly and such a remark is made

even in this place.2 We need not go into details. For the present

it is enough to note that it is Bharata’s usual method of introducing

an important topic. We should not worry over the useless problem

of how the ṛṣis, being seekers of the knowledge of these arts, can

put such questions before they are acquainted with several necessary

1N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, pp. 174-6.

2A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 172.

Page 82

things that are essential to its understanding. On the above verses

Abhinava's commentary, as it appears in print, is much corrupted

and in so far as it is intelligible the interpretation is open to doubt.

He reads in them the three questions, establishing the identity of

nāṭya and nrtta and then finds a refutation of each of these in Bharata's

answer found in the verses following the above ones. According

to him Bharata describes nrtta to be useful not just in pūrvarañga

alone, but mainly in nāṭya (or play proper) as a beautifying factor,

being a means to achieve the continuity in physical action and

thus kaiśikīvṛtti too. One cannot help feeling a little uneasy at

Abhinava's forceful twists in order to arrive at these conclusions. One

need not attach much value to these twists and conclusions. His point

that nrtta works in nāṭya as a beautifying factor may, however,

be discussed and we shall touch upon it in the pages that follow.

Let us now present the meaning of these verses as precisely as

possible. ‘When the abhinaya is created by the experts in order to

communicate the artha (things), for what then is this nrtta created

and what is its nature? It has no relation either with the literal

meaning of the songs being sung nor does it convey any kind of artha,

—that is to say that it communicates neither the theme of the

song nor any theme other than that of the song. Why is this nrtta

done while gītas and āsāritas are performed?’

In answer to these questions Bharata says :

‘atrocyate nakhalvartham kañcinnrtta mapekṣate

kintu śobhāṃ janayatītyato nrttaṃ pravartitam

prāyeṇa sarvalokasya nrtta miṣṭaṃ svabhāvataḥ

māngalya miti kṛtvā ca nrtta metat pravartitam

vivāha-prasavādāvāha-pramodābhydayādīṣu

vinodakāraṇaṃ ceti nrtta metat pravartitam’1

1 N.Ś., Vol. I, Ch. 4, pp. 176-80. In this passage there are several variants in

readings, but they cause no serious difference in meaning. At the end of the fourth

line of this passage pravartitam is amended for prakirtitam, because such a word

obviously does not fit in. At the end of this passage there is one hemistich runn-

ing as follows: ‘ataś caiva pratikṣepāt bhūtasanghaiḥ pravartitāḥ’ (p. 180). Seem-

ingly this belongs to the present topic. Abhinava comments on it in a way

peculiar to him and that cannot be accepted. This hemistich needs correction,

and if the change is made on the basis of general meaning, it might run some-

what like this: ‘nrtta meta dato hetor bhūtasanghaiḥ pravartitam’. But we may not

take this into serious account because it conveys no very important matter.

Page 83

66 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

The idea expressed in these verses is this: It is true that nrtta is in want of no theme i.e. conveys no theme, it is however instituted (pravartitam) because it causes the śobhā. Almost everyone naturally likes nrtta, and moreover it is auspicious (māṅgalya) because of which it is instituted. Further, nrtta is instituted, since it is amusement or pastime (vinoda) on various occassions such as marriage, delivery (prasava), reception (āvāha), delight (pramoda), prosperity (abhyudaya) and so on.

Here it should be realised that these questions about nrtta are not made in relation with nāṭya, in other words here nrtta is not thought of as auxiliary to nāṭya at all. Now one may argue that the very intention of dealing with nrtta in the Nāṭyaśāstra is to determine the position of nrtta as an auxiliary to nāṭya, otherwise there would have been no occasion to deal with it, and so, the present question about it should be considered in those very terms. But it is not true, because there is no evidence that nrtta is brought in here as an auxiliary to nāṭya. As we have seen it was brought in in order to be introduced in pūrvaraṅga, preliminaries, but not in nāṭya proper.

Even there, in pūrvaraṅga, it is not brought and utilised completely in the same way as practised by Śiva. Abhinaya is added to nrtta and the resulting form, what we today call nrtya, is utilised. Of course in nrtya used in pūrvaraṅga there are some places where pure nrtta is also used. However, one need not say that pure nrtta is used in pūrvaraṅga. Nrtya along with those pure nrtta portions becomes one, i.e. nrtya alone. Taking all this into consideration we can say that nrtta is not used as such in pūrvaraṅga. Even in the present day a nrtya like Bharatanāṭyam, or Kathākali is not complete without such an adaptation of this technique in the ‘breaks’, i.e. pure nrtta technique is used in kalāsams. If so, should we now call it nrtya or a combination of nrtya and nrtta?

We certainly do not call Bharatanāṭyam or Kathākali the combination of both, but if we prefer to call them so, we should forget the name nrtya, because there is no pure nrtya in the sense of not having any connection with nrtta. In the nrtya, if we consider things as they are, some amount of nrtta is inevitable. Nevertheless, we can call Bharatanāṭyam nrtya, in fact we do so, because it is enjoyable for us as a representational art. In fact this matter is accepted by Vipradāsa when he says that ‘nrtte nrtyaikade-satvāt nrtyaśabdo’pi vartate’ (for reference see p. 9, footnote 1). Similarly

Page 84

the art to be used in pūrvaranga is nrtya, though in some places the pure technique of nrtta is utilised. Then a question arises, why then, is nrtta expounded here? As we have seen, Bharata is able to create nrtya, because he has learnt nrtta from Tandu. Moreover, as we know, nrtya too requires in some places the pure technique of nrtta. For this reason, Bharata expounds it as he learns it from Tandu. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that nrtta is not dealt with here as auxiliary to nātya and the present question about the purpose and nature of nrtta should not be considered in that light, that is, as an auxiliary to nātya. This is further proved by Bharata's mention of several occassions for the performance of nrtta.

Owing to the influence of nrtta if certain new tendencies come into nātya, that would be an altogether different question, and that would not make nrtta auxiliary to nātya. It is absurd to interpret Bharata's expression, śobhām janayati, to mean that nrtta, as auxiliary, works simply as a beautifying factor, but can never evoke rasa by itself. Perhaps it is for the reason that it is not a representational art, Bharata mentions śobhā instead of rasa. But it may be safely inferred that by śobhā he means nothing but rasa.

Before closing this topic, it will not be out of place to recall the fact that medieval theorists illogically designate nrtta as deśī. Now, after noticing the general nature of nrtta as expounded by Bharata one can easily realise that this nrtta cannot but be of the mārga type. Thus, we conclude: nrtta is made of angahāras which in their turn are made of karanas. Nrtta, expounded by Bharata, is of the mārga type. It is, like nātya and nrtya, quite capable of evoking rasa, although it is non-representational.

Nrtya

So far as nrtya goes there is no definition in the Nātyaśāstra. It cannot find place there for the reasons we have already noted while discussing its origin. To repeat them briefly, nrtya was created by Bharata for the first time and no necessity of giving a special name and definition to it was felt at that time owing to its initial stage. So, for the present there is no way to find a definition of nrtya from sources other than medieval and we have already noted the inadequacy, if not the impropriety, of the medieval definitions. At this

Page 85

68 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

juncture, to arrive at a conclusion about nrtya there is only one way left to us, namely an inquiry into its nature and practice. Any attempt in this direction should not be interpreted as an attempt at a definition, rather it should be taken to be a general description.

Śārṅgadeva says ‘āṅgikābhinayai reva bhāvāneva vyanakti yat, tan-nrtyam’1. Commenting on this, Kallinātha says that as there are not several āṅgikābhinayas, here ‘āṅgikābhinayai reva’ means sāttvika, vācika and āṅgika abhinayas. Thus excluding āhāryābhinaya, he interprets that the thing which expresses only bhāvas through these three abhinayas is called nrtya. But Siṅgabhūpāla takes the same compound word to mean abhinaya of different limbs and interprets nrtya to have āṅgikābhinaya alone. The latter seems correct in view of one of Śārṅgadeva’s statements2 when it is considered in the light of his endeavour in writing the seventh chapter of the Saṅgīta-ratnākara with the main concern of expounding nrtya, although such concern is not verbally expressed. In the beginning of our work we have noticed that Dhanika says that nāṭya requires sāttvikā-bhinaya in abundance, while nrtya needs āṅgikābhinaya.

None of these views appears to be quite correct. Abhinava too seems3 not to agree with such views and from the same source it appears that the supreme importance of sāttvikābhinaya also in the case of nrtya is recognised by an ancient authority like Kohala. When a theme of a single song or at a time the themes of unconnected songs are enacted with the technique of nrtya, as we often find today in Bharatanāṭyam, owing to practical difficulties it is not possible to pay so much attention to āhārya as in the case of drama. In nrtya a single person represents several nāyakas or nāyikās or dramatis personae, but the nartaka or the nartakī does not change the costume and other things whenever there is a change of character, for that is not possible. That does not mean the total absence of āhārya. There is āhārya, because the nartaka wears a different costume which is not that of his personal life and the costume worn at that time would be that of the main or important character whom he has to represent. Thus in a sense there is āhārya of a kind in this case also. Apart from this, not only themes of single songs (muktakagīta) are enacted with

1 S.R., Vol. IV, Ch. 7, pp. 11–12.

2 ibid., verses 33–4, p. 14.

3 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 173.

Page 86

the nrtya technique, but also several kinds of plays which we call uparūpakas. Here also one has to pay as much attention to āhārya as in the case with nātya. The technique of nrtya is utilised on several occassions, as referred to here, in such cases the practicability of āhārya may vary from one case to the other. This variation should not be taken as a determining factor regarding the necessity or the role of āhārya. No doubt āhārya as such is required in nrtya quite as much as in nātya.

At least in certain ages in connection with nrtya it is said that the nartaka should sing, but at the same time keep tāla by the feet and communicate things (artha) by the rest of the body. Here controversy may arise over the significance of this prescription, as for example, whether there should be some communication while keeping the tāla with the feet or not and whether the song should be sung in such a way as to communicate something by it or not, and so on. But it is unnecessary here to go into any such details. Let us consider the necessity of vācikaābhinaya in nrtya without putting it as a rule that the nartaka should invariably utter the words. It is a general practice in both the cases—the representation of the theme of a muktakaḡita and the representation of the theme of a play or uparūpaka—that words are uttered sometimes by nartakas themselves and at the other times by the men other than nartakas. Here it should be noted that if a singer sings a song in a concert, he does not sing on behalf of anybody. But in the performances of nrtya if a singer sings the songs, he certainly sings on behalf of the nartaka. This means that in this case he must not violate the necessary tone and modulations required for the situation or that fit the character to be represented. If the singer violates this, the performance will go wrong completely. This proves the necessity of vācikābhinaya, although some difference may be noticed here when it is compared with the method of its application in nātya. This difference in the method of application does not in any way negate the necessity of vācikābhinaya in nrtya.

If we now come to the problem of determining the necessity of sāttvikābhinaya, it is quite a difficult and delicate task. There is an agelong misunderstanding on the subject. Generally speaking, for nearly a thousand years the explanation of sāttvikābhinaya has practically reduced it to a status of āṅgika. What remains is just the name. There is a gradual change in the idea of this abhinaya till it reaches

Page 87

70 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

this treacherous stage.1 We cannot, at present, enter upon such a controversial topic but it may be mentioned that later writers assume that what we call sāttvikabhāvas are originally physical manifestations and yet they are considered to belong to the mental sphere, only because of the effort needed on the part of the actor to show them. This is a totally wrong assumption. Basically and always sāttvikabhāvas are mental conditions, i.e. whether in everyday life or in an actor or in a sahṛdaya, aesthete. In the very beginning while explaining the meaning of abhinaya we have mentioned that sāttvikābhinaya is a mental act. It is as highly necessary for nṛtya as for nāṭya. To state that nṛtya requires this abhinaya less than nāṭya, would be a different and precise way of stating that nṛtya requires rasa and bhāvas in a less degree. Such a statement would be meaningless. Nṛtya requires sāttvikābhinaya quite as much as nāṭya does. So far as āṅgikābhinaya goes, there is none to dispute its right. Everybody agrees that nṛtya needs it.

From the above it ought to be clear that all the four abhinayas are as necessary to nṛtya as to nāṭya, that is to say the difference between them does not lie in the number of abhinayas which these arts require. Essentially the difference lies in the mode of use or application of some of the abhinayas in them. So far as sāttvikābhinaya is concerned there cannot exist any difference in its application. And in the case of āhārya too, one may assume the possibility of difference of application. Then, the difference of method is possible in case of vācika and āṅgika. We have already noted the difference in connection with vācika. It may be further pointed out that almost all the time music is essential in nṛtya, which is comparatively quite unimportant and optional too in the case of nāṭya. The most characteristic feature is the mode of application of āṅgika. It is easy to understand this matter when the fact that nṛtya is a resultant form of art, the result of the combination of nṛtta and abhinaya, is borne in mind. We have already noted that the life of nṛtta lies in its formal beauty and one has to concentrate on certain factors of composition in order to obtain that beauty. In the case of nṛtta the whole attention is concentrated on the form, but so much attention cannot be paid to this aspect in nṛtya when abhinaya is added to it, because in such a case it would

1 We have worked on this subject covering the whole period from Bharata to the present times. This work has not yet been published.

Page 88

THEIR RELATIONS DISCUSSED

not be possible to communicate things (artha) or represent a theme. But that does not in any way mean a total sacrifice of the formal beauty. In nrtya karanas as such cannot be retained, but their essential features are, and these are adapted in such a way as to suit abhinaya. Owing to abhinaya, nrtya becomes a representational art. Again owing to the essential features of karanas or nrtta, there is no possibility for lokadharmi, the realistic mode of abhinaya, as is possible in natya, but always natyadharmi, the idealistic mode alone is possible. This is why, although abhinayahastas, drstis, etc., which are practised in natya, are used in nrtya also, yet the effect produced by nrtya differs from the effect produced by natya. Further, in nrtya, like nrtta, the movements of limbs should invariably follow laya and tala which is not the case with natya. Owing to all these factors, nrtya, though a hybrid art, differs from natya and nrtta. It has its own characteristics, and it is better to know why.

However much it may differ from nrtta, nrtya cannot totally sacrifice nrtta, as is proved by practice and also from the texts. Whatever characteristics it may possess, without some touch of nrtta as such it tends to be tedious. That is why one finds in it an occasional touch of pure nrtta in the breaks or kalasams. But although nrtya contains nrtta in some form, yet it has, as already said, an independent existence of its own. Nrtya, with its peculiar mode of application of abhinayas, is a representational art and is capable of expressing rasa just as natya and nrtta are.

THEIR RELATIONS DISCUSSED

WE have seen that Bharata defines natya and nrtta on the basis of technique and we do not find him restricting these arts to certain effects alone, as the medieval authors do. His definitions are quite revealing, perhaps that is because he bases himself, unlike the medieval authors, primarily on the technique. In this work we have discussed nrtya following closely his line of approach, as his definition of it cannot be found in the Natyasastra. Now it is worthwhile to note the relation existing between them. Owing to the necessity of coming to certain conclusions in regard to the nature of these arts, we have already to some extent, discussed about the

Page 89

72 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

relation, before dealing with Bharata’s definitions. There we have seen that, at the beginning, only the two arts, nrtta and nātya, were flourishing but independent of each other, i.e. without any mutual contact or influence. Then in Bharata’s time it was contemplated to introduce abhinaya into nrtta, abhinaya which till that time was known to nātya alone, and it was added too. As a result we had nrtya. Thus in this sense nrtya is a deliberate art. Therefore there should not be any doubt about the fact that it is the influence of nātya that has lead to the making of this art. The influence of nātya on nrtta is thus obvious.

But the influence that nrtta exercises on nātya is a more delicate subject to trace precisely at this stage. Abhinava states1 that kaiśikī-vrtti,2 which is a ‘must’ in the case of śṛṅgārasa and which is necessary also in the case of other rasas like roudra, is not possible without nrtta, because nrtta is the source that provides valanā, vartanā, and so forth. Without it kaiśikī-vrtti cannot be effective. This idea is at the back of his mind when he makes several statements about subjects like Bharata’s reference to nrtta in connection with abhinaya,3 nātya-dharmi4 and others.5 He says very clearly that without nrtta gaps in the physical movements cannot be filled (chidracchādana) and a continuity of these movements cannot be maintained (alātacakra-pratimatā). Such statements of his do not mean that kaiśikī is invented because of nrtta. What it means is that because of nrtta kaiśikī has flourished and the emphasis is given to its profuse utilization in nātya. Here it is also necessary to point out that it is not quite clear whether Abhinava thinks that vartanā, valanā, etc., are used in nātya exactly in the same way as in nrtta. If he thinks that these should be used in the same way, that cannot be acceptable because there is no such necessity.

1 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. I, pp. 21–2.

2 Vrttis are four—kaiśikī, ārabhatī, sāttvatī and bhāratī—and the concept of vrtti was misunderstood for a long time. This is the reason why one finds a lot of inconsistency in this matter in the later treatises. In modern times some attempts have been made in this direction by scholars like V. Rāghavan, but their validity is yet to be established. It needs serious investigation and separate treatment, so it is better, for the present, not to enter into such details.

3 A.B., Vol. I, Ch. 4, p. 98.

4 ibid. Vol. II, pp. 215–18.

5 ibid. Vol. I, pp. 179–80.

Page 90

THEIR RELATIONS DISCUSSED

Apropos Abhinava’s observations we may also draw attention to the fact that Bharata prescribes (Ch. 12) certain matters to be observed in the gait and the sitting, lying, and other postures. A large number of such matters are concerned with bodily compositions. This prescription may be due to the influence of nṛtta. By this we do not mean that until nṛtta is studied it is not possible to observe such principles. They can certainly be observed, because all of them go along with and follow the psychology. A man in an angry mood naturally walks stiff and certain limbs fall in one line, similarly a man with happiness in his heart walks, sits and acts very differently and then his limbs follow another line or composition. These go along with the psychology and here there is no necessity for any nṛtta. But there is every possibility that owing to nṛtta one may have become more conscious of the principles of composition. It might have happened thus with the men of an earlier age. If the very conscious type of the prescription of some of the rules is noticed it appears that nṛtta might have worked behind it as an active principle or a guiding factor. A greater consciousness gives a greater effect, not necessarily a bad one, certainly such is not the case with the Nāṭyaśāstra. What other effects, if at all any, nṛtta may have on nāṭya is at present not clear. At the present stage it is difficult to make out the exact nature of the influence of nṛtta on nāṭya in matters of composition, but, as seen above, it is certain that nṛtta exerts its influence on nāṭya in this line at the time of the Nāṭyaśāstra.

Cārīs, as seen already, are one of the elements which make karaṇas the basic units of nṛtta. Loosely speaking these may be called in English ‘steps’ of the dance. Now it goes without saying that originally these belong to nṛtta proper rather than nāṭya. This would be quite obvious even if the nature and form of most of the cārīs are observed. These cārīs were prescribed to be used in nāṭya too. That means these are a later adoption into nāṭya when both of them came into contact. So one can add this matter to the list of the influences that nṛtta exerted on nāṭya. Perhaps this is the reason why Bharata expounds them not near to the topic of nṛtta but in the midst of the subjects that properly belong to nāṭya. But we are not in favour of giving a similar explanation in the case of nṛttahastas which are also one of the elements that make karaṇas. At the same

Page 91

74 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

time we are not for the present in a position to give any satisfactory

explanation to this.

Here it will not be in vain to add something which may help

in removing the possibility of misunderstanding regarding the nature

of the adoption of cārīs into nātya. Though cārīs are adopted into

nātya yet that does not in any way mean that in all the situations

cārīs should be used in nātya. On the contrary, their use is restricted

to only a few situations like the fight or war or similar things. Among

thirty-two cārīs there are a few which can be used in some occasions

other than war, procession, etc. Let us illustrate this point. Take

for example adhyardhikā. This can be used in confusion or in startling

and so on, similarly edakākriḍitā may be used in children’s escaping

from their parents’ sight or sometimes in case of Vidūṣaka’s walk and

so on. In such cases these need not actually be called cārīs, then they

would be simply given ways of walking. One variety of cārī is gone

through, or repeated, for the situations as exemplified here. That

is all. But what would follow after that may not be a cārī. That

is why such movements may not be called cārīs. A cārī, to be called

so, depends on, what follows next. Given steps, when they are

well-knit, are called cārīs, this being true from the point of view of

karaṇas as well as mandalas. So this gives us an idea that the same

movement of the leg is differently described according to the total

movement. This is one fact that should be clearly known. There

are other cārīs which can never be used singly as is possible in the

case of those mentioned above. These are used only in some cases

like the dance, fight and so on. So one should decide the question of

the nature of cārīs taking all of them into consideration. As has

been mentioned above, these cārīs are used in nātya in situations

like fight or procession and so on, but not everytime. The move-

ments of the legs that are used in nātya generally or almost all of

the times are gatis, gaits, but not cārīs. In the closing remarks of the

eleventh chapter devoted to mandalas, Abhinava clearly points out

this matter. Dramatists of ancient times might have found these

cārīs useful in producing the effects of war or fighting in nātya

where actual fighting is prohibited. It seems that cārīs are adapted

in situations, that demand some laya and tāla or the play of drums.

It is true that by the use of the steps suitable for the play of drums

very good effects may be produced. So there is some ground for the

Page 92

DEFINITIONS IF APPLICABLE TO PREVAILING ARTS

inference of the reason for adopting cāris from nrtta into nāṭya. Bharata’s description of nyāyas in the same chapter also may prove the fact that cāris are meant to be used only in those situations, as war, procession and so on. So even if one finds regularised steppings in the dramatic performances of some countries, as for example Java and others, the same should not be inferred in the case of ancient Indian drama too only because there were cultural exchanges among these countries. Therefore our conclusions that cāris are used in nāṭya only on a few occasions like war and procession and that this incidence may be counted among the influences that nrtta exerts on nāṭya, are justified and not without reason.

Apart from this there is a possibility of its affecting the concept of nāṭyadharma, yet now we cannot say or show any such incidence. We mention it only as a possibility.

Whether nrtya, which is a result of the meeting of nrtta and nāṭya, had, as such, influenced them after its developing as a full-fledged art or not, if it did, how was it done? These are extremely difficult questions to answer, because the works written after Bharata, the age when nrtya developed a great deal are not available to us and the still later works written after the ninth century A.D., do not throw any light on this point. On the contrary they create much confusion.

ARE THESE DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL THE PREVAILING ARTS?

Unless they are viewed in their proper persepective, our understanding of the ancient theories would be not only incorrect, they would also be incomplete unless they are also studied in relation with the present day needs. Nothing can prove to be significant unless it is useful to our life in some way or the other. So let us see how far these ancient definitions are applicable to the arts prevailing in the different regions of India. A comprehensive survey is, however, not possible now. Only a few of the schools of arts will be mentioned here in order to illustrate our point of view and some of its implications.

Bharata’s definition of nāṭya proves good even today, although dramas, so far as the structural aspect of the play goes, are not written in the present age in accordance with the rules laid down in the Nāṭyaśāstra. His definition of nāṭya is still valid, because it is made

Page 93

76 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

on broad lines and not to suit the needs and conveniences of a particular age. The experience of the world as a whole and abhinayas, these are, as we have already seen, the two important aspects in his definition. His definition is basic and it is impossible to write a drama in the present age as well as in the future by going against his overall definition.

If we come to Bharata’s definition of nrtta, that too cannot in any way be said to be invalid, but it is applicable only in a limited field. When nrtta is taken to be non-representational, today there are several schools of arts that may be so described. Take, for example, Garba, Santhāli, tribal and other dances. The secret of arts like these lies in the repetition of the same or very limited units of movements by several individuals, which may be well explained by the analogy of rhythm as understood in plastic arts like architecture, where rhythm is understood to be the successive placing of the same pattern. Nrtta expounded by Bharata is built up by vivid varieties of karanas as basic units. A notable difference is that karana, the basic unit of Bharata’s nrtta is governed by well-calculated and more logical principles, but that is not the case with the units of movements of the arts mentioned above, even if they too are governed by some kind of rules. That is why it is difficult to call the units of the movement of these arts karanas. In that case, Bharata’s definition does not cover these arts. But it is certainly applicable to the art that is performed generally as a part of the school of art called nowadays Bharatanātyam.

Considering this fact, one may say that if the medieval definition of nrtta as aṅgavikṣepa is accepted it may serve both cases—nrtta as expounded by Bharata as well as nrttas prevailing today. We have already said that the word aṅgavikṣepa is neither selective nor capable of denoting the meaning required. In this connection it may also be pointed out that no medieval theorist keeps in his mind arts like these while giving this definition. On the contrary, every one among them keeps in his mind mainly, if not only, nrtta as expounded by Bharata. So it is out of the question to accept the medieval definition of nrtta and to apply it to modern art forms.

Here it will not be out of place to mention that nrttas like those mentioned above are, generally speaking, intimately connected with occasions of mainly social life. It is for this purpose that they

Page 94

DEFINITIONS IF APPLICABLE TO PREVAILING ARTS

are learnt, rather it is through these occasions that they are learnt,

not as a special training, but as a duty, a participation in the life of

the group. For this reason, these will certainly come under the

category of deśī, popular. But the nrtta expounded by Bharata is

opposite to these in every case. There one must undergo a fairly

strenuous training under a competent master. Also, it is not restric-

ted to any given occasion of social or individual life. Nor is there

any restriction in regard to the place of its performance. Thus it

is mārga, classical. However classically inclined one may be, a full

or correct view of Indian dances cannot ignore that the nrttas belong

to the deśī category.

Now for nrtya. We have already noted that it is a representational

art, which implies that it is based on the experience of the world

as a whole. We have also come to the conclusion that it requires

four kinds of abhinayas. Now the question may arise—what is then

the difference between nātya and nrtya if both are the experience of

the world communicated by four abhinayas? The answer is that

in nrtya the mode of using abhinayas is different from that of nātya.

This is the most striking difference between the two, to which

may be added that every physical movement in nrtya should follow

laya and tāla as in nrtta. In fact nrtya inherits this quality from nrtta

itself. The Nrtya that is under question should possess the qualities of or

be in conformity with nrtta and abhinaya as expounded by Bharata.

What is called nowdays Bharatanātyam is in accord with the account

given. This school of art can be explained almost in every respect

by Bharata’s theory and it follows Bharata’s technique almost

entirely. That is why it contains the marvellous formal beauty of

Bharata’s nrtta. So far as the formal or geometrical beauty goes,

no other school of nrtya, including Kathākali, can exceed this art.

Similarly no art can stand by its side in so far as richness in variety of

movement goes. The school of art called Kathākali is based for

the most part on a different kind of technique, there is no doubt

about it, yet certain features which have a great bearing on the

aesthetic beauty, are in accord with the principles laid down by

Bharata. Thus, in one sense, perhaps a broad sense, these schools

—Bharatanātyam and Kathākali—may be said to belong to the same

category and certainly are nrtya in type.

Apart from these two, there are other schools of arts, for instance,

Page 95

78 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

Manipurī, which poses an entirely different kind of problem. In our own days, plays like Śyāmā and Citrāngadā, written by Rabindranath Tagore, are in line with Manipurī because they too pose similar problems. The schools like these have a theme and so they are representational. It is true that in this type of art the theme is not conveyed in the same way as in Bhāratanāṭyam and Kathākali. Just because abhinaya in the exact sense of Bharata’s definition is not here, it would be a gross mistake to deny the fact that in these too something is conveyed in a given way. One may be tempted to say that the latter type of abhinaya as explained by Abhinava may hold good for schools like these. But it should be borne in mind that Abhinava gives that kind of explanation to the word abhinaya, only keeping in view the songs written in praise of the gods as part of pūvaranga. In this explanation the important thing is the bringing out of the essential meaning of the song into the performer’s own awareness. This is not the case with the schools of art under discussion. If at all acceptable, this type of abhinaya, limited by its own nature, does not really suit the schools like Manipurī. Having a theme and conveying something in their own way, Manipurī and the like are nrtya types of arts. These problems await further investigation and explanation.

There is, again, another difficulty when taking the Kathak school of art into consideration. Speaking about this art, people sometimes deliver highly philosophical lectures, but in spite of them one can notice certain predominant features in it, which features seem similar to what Abhinava explains regarding the characteristics of Dombikā. In fact it is a nice question whether this art be the nrtya type or the nrtta type.

As we have seen, nrtya developed into a full-fledged state within a short time and continued as a highly popular art from the Gupta age. The brightest days of this art were the days in which Indian culture left its strong impress even beyond the boundaries of India, first through Buddhism and later also through Hinduism. In those days if anything went outside India then that was mostly through religion. Of course if we think in terms of pure possibility nothing can be denied. But if we think in terms of the nature of things, there is little chance for nrtta to spread outside through religion, because, being non-representational, it could not serve the purpose of religious

Page 96

DEFINITIONS IF APPLICABLE TO PREVAILING ARTS

education. Similarly nāṭya is too complicated to be used as an

instrument among foreign folk. So, by elimination, there was every

chance for nrtya to reach foreign lands and become part and parcel

of those cultures. Moreover nrtya is always accompanied by music,

the most attractive form of art. If one studies the subject, traces

of nrtya may be found even now in those lands. But such an

investigation has its own dangers and difficulties. If one is not

careful enough, one may do injustice to those cultures by claiming

too much. This, unfortunately, has been the general tendency.

Similarly one may do harm if the traces found elsewhere are

attributed unduly to Indian nāṭya. The history of nrtya is more com-

plicated than any of the allied arts for the reason that it had spread

in foreign lands while in the land of its origin the treatises of early

days have grown obscure.

To judge by the tone and emphasis of well-known scholars, our

study of these arts even within the boundaries of India seems to have

missed the truth of the matter. For instance, Coomaraswamy

once said, ‘The old Indian dramatic art survives, although

precariously, in the Kathākali of the Malabar provinces, and

particularly at the Kerālakalāmandalam near Trichur.’¹ Now we

know that the art being taught in Kerālakalāmandalam is not

dramatic art but it is Kathākali which, as we have seen before, is

nrtya. Further the said place is a centre only for teaching this art,

while in all parts of Kerala this art is still a living force. It would

be wrong and misleading to confine these arts to certain places or

centres alone, only because of the fact that we have come to know

of certain places. If such an attitude is admitted, one may as well

boast of Tamilnad as being the only centre for Bharatanāṭyam, for the

simple reason that Tamilnad has played an important role for the

last few decades in reviving our attitude towards this art through

popularising it and finding a place for it in the educated society and

in the curriculum of studies. In fact, the same art is employed in

Kūcipūḍi tradition in Andhra and in Yakṣagāna in Karnāṭaka.

Apart from these, the technique of Bharatanāṭyam is variously used

in these states. We cannot in this matter exclude even Kerala where

Kathākali is more popular and predominant. Thus Bharatanāṭyam

is used, may be with a different name and subtle variations in the

¹ M.G., p. 22.

Page 97

80 NATYA, NRTTA AND NRTYA: THEIR MEANING AND RELATION

manner of its adaptation, in the whole of South India. If we take

these present-day facts into consideration it is meaningless to confine

these arts—Bharatanāṭyam, Kathākali, Manipūri and Kathak—to

limited areas when people all over India are learning them.

It is certain that all the prevailing arts cannot be explained on

the basis of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Nor is it necessary that all the arts should

be in accordance with the Nāṭyaśāstra. It is not wrong in any sense

in the case of different arts not to be confined to Bharata's technique.

Such a state is not at all a sign of lacking in something very important,

as a few are unreasonably afraid of admitting, thinking that it would

reduce them to an inferior status. Unfortunately we do not find

any treatises which explain these different arts. Kathākali enthusiasts

boast of Hastalakṣaṇa-dīpikā too much. In fact, it is an insignificant

work and does not explain one-hundredth of that art. Similarly

Bharatanāṭyam people boast of Abhinayadarpana to be a chef d'oeuvre.

But, if this work is completely ignored there will not be any loss.

As we have said more than once, Bharatanāṭyam can be explained

adequately by the Nāṭyaśāstra. So far as Manipūri and Kathāk are

concerned no authoritative treatise on them has been heard to exist.

Thus, except Bharatanāṭyam no other school of nrtya or nrtta can now

be explained in every detail.

Sometimes a long list of names of ancient ācāryas is given, for

example, Nandikeśvara, Arjuna, Uṣā, Pārvati and so on. At the

same time it is also claimed that all such ācāryas founded their own

schools and wrote treatises. But no such treatise has as yet come to

light. In any case, nobody has tried to show how these schools are

related, or how these differ from each other. So, such statements,

which glorify our past, are certainly pleasing to hear but add nothing

to our understanding.

If we like to see these arts come into their own, these should be

explained on a rational basis. A great task of reconstruction awaits us.

There are outstanding problems, old and new, to be worked out.

The ancient theories would not do for all our present needs or

problems. Both ancient and modern art should be studied with

equal earnestness. We cannot neglect any school or kind of art.

Each is effective in its own way. A detailed study of present practice,

without being always tied to ancient theoretical works, remains a

necessity. Even in the case of Bharatanāṭyam the theory available

Page 98

DEFINITIONS IF APPLICABLE TO PREVAILING ARTS

from the Nāṭyaśāstra should be studied with the help of practice.

This is an immediate necessity, for it may give us the insight and

the scientific method needed to study the arts which have so far no

treatises of their own as well as those that possess a śāstra of their

own but not a comprehensive one.

Page 100

INDEX

Abhinava, 6, II, 15-22, 29, 31-6, 42, 43, 46, 47, 52, 54-8, 60, 64, 65, 68, 72-4, 78

Abhinavabhāratī, II

abhinaya(s), I, 3, 4, 14, 15-19, 22, 27, 30-2, 36, 39, 43, 45, 47, 50-2, 66, 69, 70-2, 76-8

abhinayadarpana, 33, 80

abhinayahasta, 38, 71

abhinetṛ, 16

acañcala, 59

adhyārika, 74

āhārya, 4, 47, 50, 68, 69, 70

āhāryābhinaya, 68

akubja, 59

alāṭacakrapratimā, 72

Amarakośa, 41

Amarasimha, 6, 8, 34, 39

Amarāvatī, scenes of nṛtta on relief panels at, 23

Amṛtamanthana, 28, 48

aṅga, 54, 59

aṅgahāra, 6, 8, 18, 21, 22, 28, 30, 35, 53, 55-8, 62, 67

aṅgavikṣepa, 5, 6, 8, 10, 21, 61, 76

āṅgika, 3, 47, 50, 69

āṅgikābhinaya, 2, 68, 70

aṅgula, 60

anubhāva, 52

anukāra, 3

anukārātmakatva, 4

anukārya, 47

anukṛti, 3, 51

Anuvaṅśya, 24

Apsarās, 44

ārabhatī (Vṛtti) 72

Arjuna, 80

artha (s), 30, 52, 58, 65, 69, 71

āsāritas, 65

Aśvaghoṣa, 26

Atharvaveda, 27, 59

avanaddha, 25

avāntarapadārtha, 5

avaskandana, 2

avaspandana, 2

avasthānukṛti, 47, 48

avasyandana, 2

avataranikā, 45

Bāṇa, 44

Bāhlīka, 25

Barhut, scenes of nṛtta on relief panels at, 23

Bhadramukha, 35

Bhāṇa, 29

Bharata, 3, II, 15-17, 19, 20, 22-6, 28, 29, 31-3, 35-7, 39, 40-2, 44-6, 48, 50, 52-5, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 70-3, 75-7

Bharatakalpalatā, 7

Bharatakośa, 38

Bharatanāṭyam, 38-40, 63, 66, 68, 76-80

Bharatopajñaka, 37

bhāṣyakārya, 47

Bhāṣya, 24, 25

Bhaṭṭatota, 22

bhāva, I, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 21, 29, 45, 47, 52, 61, 63, 70

bhāvābhinaya, 4

bhāvadhavani, 8

Bhāvaprakāśa, 40

Bhāvāśraya(m), 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 47

Bhūtaganas, 28

Brahma, 27-30, 44, 49, 50

Brahmavidyā, 56

carana, 55

cārī (s), 55, 61, 73-5

caturaśra, 59, 60

caturaśrau, 60

Caturaśrya, 59, 60

chidracchādana, 72

Page 101

INDEX

citra, 47

Citrābhinayādhyāya, 43

Citrāṅgadā, 78

citta-dravībhāva, 35

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., 38, 39,

62, 79

Dakṣayajña, 35

dānavas, 48, 49

Dāśarūpaka, 1, 6, 10, 11

deśī, 5, 9, 10, 67, 77

De, S.K., 6, 25

devas, 49

Dhanañjaya, 1, 5, 9, 11, 20, 47

Dhanika, 1-5, 9, 11, 20, 21, 68

dhvaja, 28

dhvajamaha, 29, 48

dhvani, 8

dīma, 28, 29

dīpti, 35, 63, 64

dombikā, 21, 78

dravībhāva, 63

drṣṭis, 71

drśya, 27

Dvāravatī, Gopīs of, 44

edakākrīḍitā, 74

gāna, 16, 17, 27

gāndharva, Gandharvas, 34, 44

gaṅgāvataraṇa, 54

Gāna-vādya-talanusārī-nṛtta 17, 19

Garba dance, 76

gatis, 74

gātravikṣepa, 2

Ghosh, Manomohan, 46

gīta(s), 19, 65

Gītakādyabhinayonmukha-nṛtta, 17,

Gopīs, 44

guṇas, 64

Harṣa, 6, 11

Hastas, 38

Hastalakṣaṇa-dīpikā, 80

hastamudrā (hattamudda), 38

Jambūdvīpa, 27, 44

jaṅghā, 54

Jātaka literature, 38

Java, 75

Jāyaṇa, 56, 57

kaiśikīvṛtti, 65, 72

kalāpaka, 56-8

kalāsams, 66, 71

Kallinātha, 54, 57, 59, 68

kapittha, 51

karaṇa(s), 19, 30, 53-61, 64, 67, 71,

73, 74, 76

Karuṇa, 19, 64

Kathak, 78, 80

Kathākali, 63, 66, 77-80

kaṭi, 54

kāvya, 7

khalīkāra, 49

khaṭakāmukha, 51, 60

kiñciccalana, 2

Kohala, 31-3, 40-3, 45, 68

Koṇārka temple, 61

kṛīdanīyaka, 27

Kṛṣṇāsva, 24

√kṣip, 8

Kūcipūḍi, 79

Kumbha Rāṇā, 9, 38, 63

Lalita, 54

lāsya, 18, 34, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 62-4,

71, 74, 77

lāsyāṅga 34

laya, 1, 5, 61, 71, 74, 77

linā, 58

lokadharmī, 71

maṇḍaka, 56-8

maṇḍalas, 74

maṇḍalasvastika, 58

madhura, 62

mādhurya, 63, 64

Mahābhāṣya, 37

Page 102

INDEX

Mahārāṇā Kumbha, 7

Manipūrī, 78, 80

Mankad, D.R., 14, 15, 19, 31, 40

mārga, 5, 9, 10, 67, 77

mārganṛtya, 9, 10

masṛṇa, 18

masṛṇa-nṛtta, 17, 19

Misramasṛṇa-nṛtta, 17, 19

Misroddhata-nṛtta, 17, 19

Mohenjodaro, archaeological evidences of nṛtta at, 22, 23

muktakagīta, 68, 69

nāgāpasarpita, 54

Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana, 34

Nandi (Tandu), 35

Nandikeśvara (Tandu), 33, 80

Nārada, 32

Nartaka, 2, 3, 44, 68, 69

Nartakī, 68

√nata, 2, 12, 13, 24

nata, 2, 24, 25, 26, 51, 52

nata-bhāryās, 26

Nāṭasūtras, 23, 24, 25

natī, 36

nāṭya, 1-8, 12-14, 17-19, 23-32, 34-41, 44-50, 52, 64-70, 72-5, 77, 79

nāṭyadharmī, 71, 72, 75

nāṭya-nṛtya, 9, 10

Nāṭyaśāstra, 11, 13-16, 20-8, 30-8, 40-5, 48, 53, 57-9, 64, 66, 67, 71 73, 75, 80, 81

Nāṭyaveda, (Nāṭyaśāstra), 44

nāyaka(s), nāyikā(s), 68

Nikuṭṭana, 13

√nīṅ, 16

nirukta, 45

√nṛt 2, 12, 24, 34, 37, 38

nṛtta, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-18, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30-4, 36-40, 44, 45, 53-8, 60-7, 71-3, 75-8, 80

nṛtta-hastas, 38, 55, 60, 61, 73

nṛttamātr̥kā, 55-58

nṛtya, 1-15, 19-22, 28-34, 37-45, 47, 54, 62-4, 66-71, 75, 77-80

nyāya(s), 75

ojas, 63

pāda, 54

padārtha, 3, 4, 21

padārthābhinayātmaka 3, 4, 21

Pāṇini, 12, 23-25

pārśva, 54

Pārvatī, 35, 44, 80

Patañjali, 26, 37

pāṭhya, 27

piṇḍibandhas, 35

pracāra, 54

Pratāparudrīya, 6

pratyaṅgaśa, 49

pravṛtti, 45

prayoga, 53

preksaṇīyaka, 2

pūrvaraṅga, 16, 19, 20, 28, 30, 36, 65-7, 78

rāga, 42, 43

rāgālāpa, 62

Rāghavan, V., 56, 72

rasa(s), 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 19, 27, 35, 45, 47, 48, 52, 61, 62, 67, 70, 72

rasābhinaya, 4

rasadhvani, 8

rasāśraya(m), 2, 3, 10, 47, 48

recaka (s), 18, 35, 55

raudra, 19, 64, 72

Rgveda, 27

r̥ṣis, 64

rūpakas, 14, 40, 41

sahrdayas, 52, 70

Śaka, 25

śākhā, 54

sāmānyābhinaya, 25

Samavakāra, 28, 29

Sāmaveda, 27

Sāñchi, scenes of nṛtta on relief panels at, 23

saṅghātaka, 56-8

Page 103

INDEX

saṅgīta, 47

Saṅgītaratnākara, 44, 68

Saṅgraha, 25, 26

Santhālī dance, 76

Śāradātanaya, 40

Sārṅgadeva, 44, 54, 56, 57, 63, 68

Śāstri, Ramaswami, 40, 41

sāttvika, 3, 47, 50, 68

sāttvikābhinaya, 2, 69, 70

sāttvatī (vṛitti), 72

Saurāṣṭra, 44

sauṣṭhava, 59, 60

siddhi, 25

Śilāli, 23

Siṅgabhūpāla, 57, 59, 68

śiras, 54

Śiva, 16, 17, 20, 21-3, 28-33, 35, 44, 53, 54

śobhā, 5, 8, 66, 67

śobhāhetu, 5, 6

śravya, 27

Śravyakāvya, 47

śṛṅgāra, 19, 64, 72

sthāna 55, 61

Śuddha-nṛtta, 17, 18

sukumāra, 18, 62, 64

sukumāprayoga, 35-7

Sūrya, 61

Sūtra works, 24, 25

svastikarecita, 58

Śyāmā, 78

tāla, 1, 5, 55, 61, 69, 71, 74, 77

tālalayāśraya, 61

tāṇḍava, 18, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 62, 63, 64

Taṇḍu, 28, 31-34, 44, 67

Tretāyuga, 44

Tribal dances, 76

Tripura, 32

Tripuradāha, 28

Udayagiri, scenes of nṛtta on relief panels at, 23

uddhata, 18, 35, 37, 64

Uddhata-nṛtta 17, 19

upajñā, 29

upānga, 54

uparūpakas, 14, 15, 40-3, 69

īru 54

Uṣā, 44, 80

vācika, 1, 3, 47, 50, 68, 70

vācikābhinaya, 69

vādya, 16, 17, 19

vaiṣṇava-sthāna, 60

Vaiśvata-manvantara, 44

vākyārtha 4, 21

vākyārthābhinayātmaka, 3, 4

valanā, 72

vañcita, 13

vartanā, 72

vārtika(s), 6, 24

vibhāva, 52

Viduṣaka, 74

Vidyānātha, 6

Vipradāsa, 7, 9, 38, 39, 66

vīra, 19, 64

Virūpākṣa, 49

Viṣṇu, 49

Vṛtti, 29, Vṛttis, kaiśikī, ārabhatī, sāttvatī and bhāratī, 72

Whitney, W.D., 12

Williams, Monier M., 12

Yajurveda, 27

Yakṣagānam, 79

Page 105

Other Works by the Same Author

SEVEN WORDS IN BHARATA

WHAT DO THEY SIGNIFY

THE INDIAN TECHNIQUE

CLAY MODELLING

TECHNIQUE OF GANDHARAN AND INDO-AFGHAN

STUCCO IMAGES

(To be published soon)