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

( xxx )
10. Some Observations on Svarādhyāya and General
Evaluation
As stated before, this chapter is largely a consolidation
and reorganisation of the lakṣaṇa found in the earlier texts.
A few relevant points, however, have to be stated here regard-
ing Śārṅgadeva's treatment of certain topics.
Svara-sādhāraṇa : Svara-sādhāraṇa as treated in S. R. is
already latent in N. S. On the basis of Abhinavagupta's
commentary¹, Śārṅgadeva has spelt it out and his 12 vikṛta-
svara-s are nothing but the renaming of the svara-s born out
of the process of sādhāraṇa.
Sādhāraṇa belongs to a context where svara-s are basi-
cally seven. Only two vikṛta-svara-s, antara (gāndhāra) and kākalī
(niṣāda) are accepted as regular notes as far as they are also
fixed on any instrument, especially of the harp type.² On
the other hand the kaiśika-sādhāraṇa is meant only for cover-
ing the consequential changes in intervals that are not to be
regularly fixed on the strings of a vīṇā. Texts of the post-
Ratnākara period equated all sādhāraṇa-s, and tried to fix all
the svara-s on the frets of vīṇā. Further, this was not in
accordance with the grāma-system. Misconception on the
part of later authors regarding the treatment in S. R. arose
because it was wrongly surmised that both the sādhāraṇas,
antara and kaiśika were meant to co-exist. In fact the jāti-s
in which the svara-sādhāraṇa occurred are clearly prescribed.
Moreover, when Śārṅgadeva lists the seven śuddha-svara-s and
twelve vikṛta-svara-s, he is merely consolidating the lakṣaṇa
handed down. Unfortunately the writers of the later period
seem to have been confused by the enumeration of the 19
svara-s in one sequence and thought that the svara-s should
occur one after another. Consequently they tried to fix these

1. A. B. on N. S. 28. 34-36, p. 31-34.
2. Nānyadeva states that in the Vipañcī vīṇā which had nine
   strings, the two extra strings were tuned to antara and kākalī
   svara-s, cf. Bharata-bhāṣya, folio 368 & 371.
   ( xxxi )
   svara-s on the frets of the vīṇā. They had not apparently
   tried to relate the sādhāraṇa prakaraṇa with the enumeration
   of vikṛta svara-s. Otherwise such confusion might not have
   arisen. S. R.'s description of the rāga-s too follows the same
   svara system and hence there too there is no need for the
   kaiśika and other svara-s to be mentioned. Only kākalī and
   antara need be mentioned in rāga-s.
   Jāti-s : Some questions arise in connection with the
   delineation of jāti-s in S. R.
   ( i ) Did jāti-s have any practical relevance when the
   rāga-s had emerged ?
   ( ii ) Each jāti, ṣaḍjī etc. was conceived as a 'class'
   combining different individual melodies having
   certain common characteristics. But we find that
   each jāti is illustrated at the end by means of a
   single prastāra. How could the tradition of speci-
   fic prastāra of jāti-s be compatible with the generic
   nature of jāti which could be conceived as a very
   broad melodic entity encompassing numerous
   varieties ? Or, is it indicative of the fact that jāti
   had become obsolete in Mataṅga's time and the
   prastāra-s were composed just to retain its rough
   outlines ? These questions need to be seriously
   investigated.
   Śārṅgadeva belonged to that period of Indian history
   when most of the disciplines, especially Saṅgīta-śāstra, were
   trying to consolidate the original contribution of earlier tradi-
   tion. Talking of saṅgīta-śāstra in particular, the history of
   its texts can be divided into four periods.¹
3. These periods have been treated in some detail in my paper
   entitled "A Historical Note on Musical Research in India"
   presented at a seminar in M. S. University, Baroda in
   Nov; 77.