सङ्गीतरत्नाकर: प्रथम भाग (शार्ङ्गदेव - स्वरगताध्याय सविस्तार व्याख्या व अनुवाद सहित)

( xxviii )
8. Constant References in and Influence on Later
Literature
Very soon after it was written, S. R. appears to have
attracted the attention of the scholars all over the country,
and within a century the commentary (by Siṁhabhūpāla)
on the entire work had been completed. Even in this century
scholars like V.N. Bhatkhande¹ had accepted the importance
of serious study of S. R. Thus almost from the time it was
composed upto the present day S. R. has commanded
continuous attention of scholars.
The one point on which most of the subsequent authors
have cited S. R. as an authority is the importance of lakṣya
in comparison to lakṣaṇa. This is understandably so because,
to the scholars of the post-Śārṅgadeva period who found it
difficult to reconcile the widening cleavage between lakṣaṇa
of S. R. and the contemporary lakṣya, the statement by
Śārṅgadeva himself asserting the primacy of lakṣya was
greatly welcome.²
Sometimes S. R. has also been the target of reproach
for the same reason that the lakṣaṇa did not satisfy the lakṣya
of the medieval period. The author of S. Sud.³ found the
lakṣaṇa-s of rāga-s described in S. R. quite obscure and not
pertaining to the rāga-s of his time. S. Sud. declares that it
had to discard the delineation of rāga-s in S. R. because of
their obscurity and neither did the commentaries of Keśava
and Kallinātha make the delineation more accessible. In
recent times too S. R. has not been spared. Pt. Omkarnath
Thakur in his Saṅgītañjali⁴ attacks S. R.’s method of descri-
bing the catuḥ-sāraṇā experiment on the grounds of its not
being lucid, clear, scientific, and practical. S. R.’s approach
has, however, been defended by K. C. D. Bṛhaspati in his
Saṅgītacintāmaṇi.⁵

1. p. 789 Hindustani Sangit Paddhati Vol. IV. edition, Hathras.
2. cf. S. M. K., 2, 12; R. V., 1.33; Saḍrāgacandrodaya, 10.
3. S. Sud. p. 152, sl, 407-409
4. Sangitanjali Vol. V, p. 94.
5. Saṅgītacintāmaṇi, p. 134-148.

---

( xxix )
One aspect in which S. R.’s influence is seen to be the
greatest is the scheme that some of the authors of the post-
Śārṅgadeva period adopted in composing their treatises.
Saṅgītadarpaṇa, Saṅgīta-sārāmṛta, Saṅgīta-sāra (from Jaipur),
and even S. Sud. which is quite critical of S. R., follow the
arrangement of the subject set by S. R. But these works are
often brief and leave out many of the details given in S. R.
9. References to S. R. in non-musical texts
Many of the writers of non-musical texts have also
acknowledged S. R.’s authority in music and allied subjects
and have referred to it in their works. Few examples may
be noted here.
(a) Jagannātha in his Rasa-gaṅgādhara, while discussing
the problem of rasa-s being eight or nine, quotes a verse
from the rasa-section of the last chapter in S. R.¹ Again
while explaining how the sthāyī-bhāva-s become vyabhicāri-
bhāva-s, he quotes a verse from S. R. to support his state-
ment.² Thus it is seen that S. R.’s contribution to the treat-
ment of rasa was noticed in the literature on poetics.
(b) Mallinātha the commentator on the play Śiśupāla-
vadha of Māgha, quotes a number of verses relating to śruti
and svara from S. R.³
(c) Ranganātha quotes S. R. on the characteristics of
rāga valantikā, in his commentary ‘Prakāśikā’ on Kalidāsa’s
play ‘Vikramorvaśīyam’.⁴
Thus it is very clearly seen that S. R. had made a
tremendous impact on the field of music literature and esta-
blished for itself a status next only to Bharata’s N. S.

1. Rasa-gaṅgādhara p. 37 (quoting S. R. 7.1360)
2. ibid. p. 38 (quoting S. R. 7, 1519cd-1520ab)
3. Mallinātha’s commentary on Magha’s Śiśupālavadha, Canto
   1, sl. 10.
4. Prakāśikā on Vikramorvaśīyam, Act 4, sl. 25 quotes S. R. 2. 2.
   147-148. S. R. however gives the name of the rāga as vallāta.