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

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS
Indological Publishers and Booksellers
Head Office: BUNGALOW ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, DELHI-7
Branches : 1. CHOWK, VARANASI-1 (U.P.)
2. ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA-4 (BIHAR)
Sponsored by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi
© 1. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Shringy 2. Dr. Prem Lata Sharma
First Edition : Varanasi, 1978
Price : Rs. 100
Printed in India
AT TARA PRINTING WORKS, KAMACCHA, VARANASI, AND PUBLISHED BY
NARENDRA PRAKASH JAIN, FOR MOTILAL BANARSIDASS, BUNGALOW
ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, DELHI-7
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Preface i-v
2. Note on Translation vi-x
3. Transliteration Code x
4. List of Abbreviations xi
   5 Introduction xii-xxxii
5. Table of Contents of Svarādhyāya-Chapter-I
   Sanskrit xxxiv
   English xlii
6. Text and Translation 1-386
   Section—1 : Introductory 1-20
   Section—2 : The Genesis of the Human
   Embodiment 21-107
   Section—3 : Nāda, Śruti and Svara 108-159
   Section—4 : Grāma, Mūrcchanā, Krama and Tāna 160-228
   Section—5 : Overlapping (Sādhāraṇa) 229-239
   Section—6 : Varṇālaṅkāra 234-265
   Section—7 : Jāti-s (Melodic Types) 266-368
   Section—8 : Gīti-s 369-386
7. Appendices 387-417
8. Word-index cum-glossary of technical words 418-432
9. Half-line Index to Sanskrit śloka-s 433-448
10. Errata 449-450

PREFACE
I was inspired to undertake the present project of
translating Saṅgītaratnākara into English by two factors viz.
the inadequacy of the available English translation of the 1st
chapter by C. Kunhan Raja, and the education and training
that I received from Dr. (Miss) Premlata Sharma, Head of
the Department of Musicology, Banaras Hindu University,
while I was her student for Diploma in Music Appreciation
during 1967-69. Even though the textual study of Saṅgīta-
ratnākara was not, strictly speaking, a part of the curriculum,
she was kind and generous enough to recognise the special
position of some of the students, who were also the members
of the staff of the department, and to extend to them the
benefit of her wide learning and research experience by way
of initiating them into the art of interpreting original Sanskrit
texts on music with the help of available commentaries, and
luckily I was one of them. So, even though I had been
working as Research Assistant in the Department of Musico-
logy and in the College of Music & Fine Arts prior to the
formation of the department in 1966, for about ten years or
so, Sanskrit texts on music could become meaningful to and
enjoyable for me only after I could avail of this opportunity
of learning the intricacies, the technicalities and the symbo-
lism of the language of Saṅgīta-śāstra from Dr. Sharma.
Hence, the need for a music-oriented, topic-wise, technically
precise English translation of Saṅgīta-ratnākara written in a
flowing prose style unhindered by frequent Sanskrit inter-
jections and accompanied by an elaborate and lucid com-
mentary, was felt by me not as a scholar of Sanskrit but as a
student of Musicology. A detailed note on the method and
the manner of the translation has been written separately
pointing out the peculiarities of the execution of the work.
In 1970, the University Grants Commission introduced
a scheme of writing university level books and monographs,

Page ( ii )

( ii )
and I took the earliest opportunity of putting forth a proposal
of writing an English translation of Saṅgīta-ratnākara in three
parts related to music (i. e. excluding the chapter on dancing)
under the expert guidance and supervision of Dr. (Miss)
Prem Lata Sharma who readily agreed to sponsor the
proposal. And the U. G. C. too was kind and gracious
enough to grant me a Research Fellowship for three years to
undertake this project.
I am happy to say that as the result of the combined
efforts of the U.G.C., which provided me the material means
to pursue my researches and writing unhindered, the autho-
rities of the Banaras Hindu University who granted me leave
to work on the project, and Dr. Prem Lata Sharma who has
very affectionately, very carefully and very meticulously
nursed the whole product, and Messrs. Motilal Banarsidass,
who readily agreed to publish this work, it has become
possible for me to present this first volume comprising
Chapter I related to the treatment of svara, in the service of
the learned scholars and the learning students; and I hope it
will be found to be of greater help in understanding Śārṅga-
deva, whose work Saṅgīta-ratnākara is a landmark in the
history of Saṅgīta-śāstra.
Though the translation was originally planned and
written out with an elaborate commentary and critical as
well as literary annotations with a view to making it self-
sufficient, it has been considered necessary, convenient and
useful to give the Sanskrit text as well along with it. This
was considered necessary firstly because the translation is
presented in a topic-wise order dealing with homogeneous
ideas and concepts in convenient paragraphs in order to
make the reading more intelligible and easy to grasp, and
secondly because it was found unavoidable to modify some
of the readings of the text as published by the Adyar Library
in view of the technical accuracy of the readings available
in the Ānandāśrama edition or other comparable texts like
Saṅgītarāja of Rāṇā Kumbha and so on. Thus, the Sanskrit

Page ( iii )

( iii )
text has also been partly re-edited in so far as the arrange-
ment of some of the verses has been modified to correspond
with the paragraphs as arranged in the translation and also
in so far as some modifications have also been made in the
text here and there, though very sparingly.
The present project envisages the translation of six out
of the seven chapters of Saṅgīta-ratnākara divided as follows :
Volume I : Chapter I
Volume II : Chapters II to IV
Volume III : Chapters V & VI
I am happy to disclose that the Ms. of Vol. II is also
almost ready. It will not be before long that it is presented
for publication, while work on Volume III as well is in
progress.
It is not for me to say that the task of translating
Saṅgīta-ratnākara (Vol. I), that I had set to myself quite
unwittingly in my enthusiasm for doing something worth-
while, could hardly be accomplished by me single-handed,
since it not only demands great proficiency in Sanskrit and
English languages but also an insight into the musical con-
cepts of Saṅgīta-śāstra, and besides the publication of such a
work naturally involves co-operation of many able workers.
I am, therefore, greatly indebted to my seniors and friends
who have lovingly rendered every possible help in bringing
the work upto the mark, though here I can make notable
mention only of those few but for whose contribution this
work could not have been published in its present form.
I do not find any words indeed to adequately acknow-
ledge the contribution of Dr. (Miss) Premlata Sharma under
whose expert advice and able supervision the whole work has
been executed and who, out of her love for learning, volun-
tarily offered to write an introduction to the translation. In
fact, whatever I have been able to do is primarily because
of her, since without her initiation and continued co-ope-
ration, nothing could have been finally accomplished. I am

( iv )

also greatly thankful to Mr. N. Ramanathan, Research
Scholar of the Deptt. of Musicology, B. H. U. and presently,
Lecturer in Musicology, Indirā Saṅgīta Vishvavidyālaya,
Khairagarh, who has been kind enough to go through my
press-copy including the index, and has offered many
valuable comments and suggestions to improve the translation
in its form and content. He has also been kind enough to
go through the printed file and much of the credit for the
preparation of errata goes to him.
Since Saṅgīta-ratnākara incorporates a chapter on human
embodiment (Piṇḍotpatti), which indeed is a unique feature
of Śārṅgadeva’s work, (and he could possibly attempt it
because he was himself a medical man as stated by him),
special care has been taken in preparing the translation and
the commentary as well as the notes of this chapter; and I
am extremely grateful to Prof. Priyavrata Sharma, Head of
the Deptt. of Dravyaguṇa in the Instt. of Medical Sciences,
B. H. U., who has been kind enough to go through the Ms.
of the whole chapter and suggest some technical modifi-
cations. I am also thankful to Dr. K. C. Gangrade, formerly
Reader in Anatomy in the Institute of Medical Sciences and
presently Reader in Sitar in the Department of Instrumental
Music, B. H. U., who has also been kind enough to glance
through this chapter and to offer some technical suggestions
for the improvement of the draft translation.
My thanks are due to Shri Ritwik Sanyal, a research
scholar of the Deptt. of Musicology, for assisting in the pre-
paration of the Press-copy of the Ms. Many thanks are
due to Shri Gopal Lal Bhatt and Pandit Maheshwar Jha,
Assistants of the Research Section of the Deptt. of Musico-
logy for assisting in proof-reading and the preparation of the
Śloka-index respectively. Also I am thankful to Shri Kapildeo
Giri for assisting in writing the Ms. of the Sanskṛit text and
Shri Chhannulal, Senior Clerk of the Deptt. for typing the
Ms. and the Press-copy of the work neatly. I am also
thankful to Shmt. Vimla Musalgaonkar, the Sanskrit teacher

( v )

of the Deptt. of Musicology, for her constant moral support
and encouragement in the accomplishment of the difficult
task.
Above all, I am grateful to the University Grants
Commission for granting a Research Fellowship for this
project and thus providing the initial impetus to this
publication.
Our thanks are also due to the publishers of this book,
Motilal Banarsidass for readily accepting the work of publi-
cation and for seeing it through the press expeditiously. Last
but not the least, I am thankful to Tara Printing Works,
Varanasi, for providing every facility for printing the work in
the desired manner and in a short period of time.
Dated 17.11.1977
Deptt. of Musicology,
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi—221005
R. K. Shringy

Left Page

A NOTE ON TRANSLATION
The present English translation of Saṅgīta-ratnākara of
Śārṅgadeva is based on the Adyar edition of the Sanskrit
text published by the Adyar Library and Research Centre of
the Theosophical Society, Madras in 1943. The text has
almost entirely been adopted from that edition excepting a
few places where the readings were not found to be techni-
cally significant and relevant to the context, and where some-
times the readings of the Ānandāśhrama (Poona) edition
(edited by Shri Maṅgesh Ramakrishna Telaṅga) are found
to be more meaningful; though, that edition has been refer-
red to only in very exceptional cases only and not as a gene-
ral rule. Apart from these two editions of Saṅgīta-ratnākara
no other edition or Ms. has been consulted in preparing
this translation, probably because it was not considered with-
in the scope of a translator's work to do so.
When the project of translating this monumental work
of Saṅgīta-śāstra was taken up in 1972, there were quite a few
translations available in English, Hindi, Telugu, Kannaḍa
and so on, most of them fragmentary. However, even though
they were available, none of them was noticed by the
author till the first draft of the work was nearly completed so
far as this volume is concerned. But by and by the follow-
ing works were noticed.
(i) Saṅgīta-ratnākara (Part—I), Hindi translation by
Shri Laksminarayana Garg, Saṅgīta-kāryālaya
Hathras, 1964 (consists of Chapter I only)
(ii) Telugu translation of the first chapter with that of
Kallinātha's commentary in an appendix, by
Gandam Sri Ramamurti published by the Saṅgīt
Nāṭak Akademi, Andhra Pradesh, Kalā Bhawan,
Hyderabad—4, in 1966.
(iii) Kannaḍa translation of the first three sections of
Chapter—I with a commentary (also in Kannaḍa)

Right Page

( vii )
called Niḥśaṅka-hṛdaya by Prof. R. Sathyanarayana,
published by Prasaranga, Mysore University, 1968.
(iv) English translation of Chapter I by C. Kunhan
Raja from Adyar Library, Madras, 1945.
(v) English translation of Chapter VII on Dancing by
K. Kunjunni Raja and Radha Burnier, first pub-
lished in Vol. XXIII parts 3 & 4 of Adyar Library
Bulletin, Brahma Vidya, 1959. This has been
reprinted in 1976.
Excepting C. Kunhan Raja's English translation, no
other work could possibly be consulted by the author (i. e.
the present translator). It has been beneficial to consult
this translation since some of the charts have been adopted
from it with some modification. Another work published in
1975 was noticed as under.
(vi) Marathi translation of chapters I to IV along with
the translation of Kallinātha's commentary by
G. H. Tarlekar published by Maharastra Rajya
Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, Bombay—32 in 1975.
The author of this work plans to complete the Marathi
translation of the entire Saṅgīta-ratnākara in his 2nd and 3rd
Volumes on which he is presently working. Any other
translations of this work, if available, have not yet been
noticed.
The present English translation is executed in quite a
different manner. First of all, the translation does not follow
the traditional śloka-wise order, rather it is presented in con-
venient paragraphs that naturally comprehend a complete
idea or expound it conceptually. The śloka-wise translations
may be suitable for literature but so far as technical works,
as this, are concerned, they hardly make any clear and
lucid presentation so that, more often than not, the subject

( viii )
matter is either confused or distorted. Therefore, in order
to make the translation more intelligible to the modern in-
tellect, the entire work has been further classified into many
subdivisions according to the different topics. Thus, it is
probably for the first time that the Sanskrit text as well as its
English translation are being presented in the modern lite-
rary format. Accordingly the Sanskrit text has also been
provided with suitable headings and sub-headings.
The general order of presentation is such that the text
in Sanskrit is immediately followed by translation which in
its turn is followed by the comments, and the comments are
followed by notes, all of which run concurrently as far as
possible. The substance of the two Sanskrit commentaries of
Kallinātha and Siṁhabhūpāla as printed in the Adyar edition
of Sangīta-ratnākara has generally been incorporated in
comments as much as it has been found possible in conso-
nance with the modern style of presentation. However, the
purpose of writing the comments is not merely to represent
all that is useful in the Sanskrit commentaries, but to make
the translation and the subject matter of the text easily in-
telligible and accessible to an average reader of a musicologi-
cal text. The comments, in other words, actually constitute
a running commentary on the text, comprehending most of
the developments in the field since the Sanskrit commentaries
were written. The notes are written mostly on the English
rendering of the text and are more of a literary nature, while
the comments are generally more concerned with the techni-
cal exposition of the subject matter.
The Śloka-s of the text have been divided into four
parts called a, b, c & d, roughly representing the four quar-
ters of a verse, and since the translation presented here follows
a topic-wise arrangement, the paragraph and other topic
headings are indicated in terms of Śloka numbers suffixed
with a, b, c and d (as the case may be) to cover the entire
range of the topic or the paragraph.
( ix )
While writing Sanskrit words in Roman script, inter-
national diacritical marks are applied. These symbols are
indicated here in a separate transliteration code.
With regards to translating technical terms from Sans-
krit to English, as a matter of principle, every effort has been
made to translate or to give English equivalents whenever
possible, but exception is made with respect to certain con-
cepts that have no parallel in Western music e. g. grāma,
mūrcchanā, tāla and so on, that are retained in their original
form. However, even in such cases, an approximate English
equivalent has been provided into brackets, at least for the
first time, if not every time the word is used, e. g. jāti (melo-
dic type). Sometimes the English equivalents are thought
to be unconventional, and in such cases the original Sanskrit
terms are similarly provided into parenthesis e. g. tone-
pattern (varṇa). This policy has been executed as far as it
has been possible to do so intelligently.
The translation presented here is quite authentic, as
near in interpretation to the original text as the English
idiom makes it possible. Even though a śloka-wise presenta-
tion is not made, every paragraph is truly represented by the
verse Nos. indicated at the end of the paras, while the range
of the topic is indicated by the verse Nos. at the end of the
topic-headings. The words that have been supplied due to
gramatical necessity of the English expression have generally
been put into brackets, so much so that expository or comple-
mentary phrases implied in the original text are also similarly
indicated. However, every care has been taken not to make
the translation too literal, at the cost of presentable diction,
lucidity of expression, or technical meaning. Plurals made
out of Skt. words are distinctly indicated by a hyphen e. g.
grāma-s. So, in short an attempt has been made to present a
faithful, authentic, liberal and a clear English translation of
the original Sanskrit text couched in a language that can be
easily understood by the students as well as the scholars of
saṅgīta-śāstra alike.

( x )
The translation is accompanied by three appendices
for different specialists; and also a glossary-cum-index is
provided wherein the various technical terms are very briefly
elucidated. A half verse line index too is added to provide a
guide to the text.
It is hoped that this work will prove to be a useful aid
to those scholars and students who are not so well conversant
with Sanskrit as to approach the text directly.
TRANSLITERATION CODE
Devanāgarī script | Roman script

1. Vowels :
   (a) short—अ इ उ ऋ ऌ | a, i, u, ṛ, lṛ
   (b) long—आ ई ऊ | ā, ī, ū,
   (c) dipthongs—ए ऐ ओ औ | e, ai, o, au
   (d) anusvāra—ं & visarga—ः | ṁ & ḥ
2. Consonants :
   ( i ) Gutturals—क् ख् ग् घ् ङ् | k, kh, g, gh, ṅ
   ( ii) Palatals—च् छ् ज् झ् ञ् | c, ch, j, jh, ñ
   (iii) Linguals—ट् ठ् ड् ढ् ण् | ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, ṇ
   (iv) Dentals—त् थ् द् ध् न् | t, th, d, dh, n
   ( v) Labials—प् फ् ब् भ् म् | p, ph, b, bh, m
   Semivowels—य् र् ल् व् | y, r, l, v
   Sibilants—श् ष् स् | ś, ṣ, s
   Sonant aspirate—ह् | h
   Metrical symbols : | Tonal symbols :
   ( i ) laghu—। short | Ṣaḍja sa Madhyama ma
   ( ii) guru—S long | Ṛṣabha ri Pañcama pa
   (iii) pluta—Ś prolonged | Gāndhāra ga Dhaivata dha
   or elongated | Niṣāda ni
   LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS*
   Abh. Bh. Abhinava-bhāratī, Abhinavagupta's commentary on N. S.
   Ad. ed. Adyar edition of Saṅgīta-ratnākara
   Bh. G. Bhagavadgītā
   Br. D. Bṛhaddeśī of Mataṅga
   Caraka Caraka saṁhitā
   Chap. Chapter
   Eng. English
   Eng. trans. English translation of N. S. by Shri Manmohan Ghosh
   M. Ghosh
   G. O. S. Gayakwad Oriental Series, Baroda
   I. M. J. Indian Music Journal
   J. R. A. S. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society
   ‘K’ Kallinātha
   Kashi or K ed. Kashi (Chowkhambha) edition of N. S.
   K. K. Kavirāj Kunjala Bhishagratna, the English translator of Suśruta
   K. R. Kunhan Rāja, author of the Eng. translation of S. R. Chapt. I published from Adyar, Madras.
   Lit. Literally.
   N. S. Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata
   N, S., G. O. S. Nāṭya-śāstra, Gayakwad Oriental Series, Baroda Edition
   P. L. S. Dr. (Miss) Prem Lata Sharma
   Rv. Ṛgveda
   ‘S’ Siṁhabhūpāla
   Skt. Sanskrit
   S. R. Saṅgīta-ratnākara of Śārṅgadeva
   S. Raj Saṅgīta-rāja of Rāṇā Kumbhā
   Suśruta Suśruta Saṁhitā
   Tr. Translation
   *For the translation.

INTRODUCTION

1. Prefatory Remarks
   If one were to name a single text of Saṅgīta-śāstra which
   embodies the earlier tradition (lakṣaṇa, body of terms and
   concepts) in remarkable detail and at the same time incor-
   porates contemporary developments, which has been cons-
   tantly referred to in musical and literary texts in the
   subsequent centuries, which has been commented upon
   profusely¹, which has not only been looked upon with awe
   and reverence, but has also occasionally been the target of
   reproach born of frustration, which wielded great influence
   over later tradition, one would undoubtedly name the
   Saṅgīta-ratnākara (hereafter referred to as S. R.) of Śārṅga-
   deva.
   S. R. has been known as saptādhyāyī³ on the model of
   Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī and has for at least six centuries symboli-
   sed the ancient tradition of lakṣaṇa. Earlier texts do not
   appear to have been directly studied by most of the auhtors
   of lakṣaṇa in the subsequent centuries. Keen interest in the
   direct studies of earlier works like Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra,
   Dattila's Dattilam, Mataṅga's Bṛhaddeśī, Abhinavagupta's
   Abhinavabhāratī, Someśvara's Mānasollāsa and Nānyadeva's
   Bharatabhāṣya, has emerged only in the latter half of the 20th.
   century and S. R. has served as a constant frame of reference
   in this study. Hence S. R. has re-emerged as a landmark
   in Saṅgīta-śāstra, illuminating its ancient and medieval tradi-
   tion like a Dehalī-pradīpa³.
2. The latest commentary, 'Setu' of Gaṅgārāma was composed as
   recently as the 19th century.
3. cf. S. Sud, p. 152 sl. 407. Sahasras (a compilation, made in
   the 17th. century of dhrupad texts ascribed to Bakshoo of the
   15th. century), song-text no. 188, 400, 479, 958.
4. A lamp on the threshold of a room illuminating both inside
   and outside.
   ( xiii )
5. Date and Identity of the Author
   Śārṅgadeva introduces himself as belonging to a family
   which hailed from Kashmir. Kashmir is the glorious land
   of Sanskrit learning that dominated for centuries the various
   branches of study; the land that gave birth to a versatile
   genius like Abhinavagupta preceded by a host of commen-
   tators¹ on N.S. and Ānandavardhana, Mātṛgupta, Mammaṭa
   etc. Śārṅgadeva must have inherited from his father and
   grandfather the rich tradition of various disciplines. He
   must also have been acquainted with the lakṣya of Kashmir
   indirectly and with that of the Deccan, where the family
   settled, directly. In a way the entire śāstra (source of
   theoretical knowledge) and sampradāya (practical tradition)
   of the earlier periods must have been accessible to him.
   In Deccan, the family lived under the patronage of the
   Yādava dynasty at Devagiri (present Daulatabad).² This
   dynasty was formally established by King Bhillama in 1145
   A. D. It is during his reign that Śārṅgadeva's grandfather
   Bhāskara appears to have shifted from Kashmir to Devagiri.
   One wonders what could have prompted Bhāskara to leave
   his motherland and move to a distant foreign region. Was
   it the political persecution which forced him to flee and seek
   refuge in the other end of the land ? Or was it the special
   patronage extended by the prince of a distant land to him
   because of his fame that attracted him to the Yādava court ?
   P. V. Sharma feels that although there is no conclusive
   evidence, it may be that the King of Devagiri, impressed by
   Bhāskara's scholarship in Āyurveda, invited him to his court as
6. Their works are lost today.
7. Sources for the historical details are :-
   (a) Bhāratīya Vidyābhavan's The History and Culture of the
   Indian People, Vol. V.
   (b) Śārṅgadeva's own account regarding his genealogy and
   other details in the first prakaraṇa of the first chapter of
   S. R.
   (c) P. V. Sharma's paper in Hindi—"Yādava Kings, the
   Great Patrons of Āyurveda in the Medieval Times."

Page ( xiv )

( xiv )
a royal physician. Besides, Bhāskara's son Soḍhala was also
appointed the Accountant General (Śrīkaraṇāgraṇī) in King
Bhillama's court.
King Bhillama died in 1193 A. D. His son Jaitrapāla
or Jaitugi ascended the throne and ruled for a short period.
He was succeeded by Siṅghaṇa in 1200 A. D. who was not
only a very powerful king but also a great patron of arts,
literature, and science. It is during his reign that Śārṅgadeva
who continued in his father's (Soḍhala's) post as the Royal
Accountant, seems to have composed his works. Having
had great scholars for his ancestors, Śārṅgadeva's heredity
must have provided him with a very rich 'saṁskāra-puñja'
(cultural heritage) combining the northern or north-western
and southern traditions in learning and arts. Along with
his study of Saṅgīta he appears to have carried on the family
profession of Āyurveda. He had also written a book on
Āyurveda entitled 'Adhyātmaviveka' to which he himself refers.¹
This work is not available. Besides this and S. R. no other
work of Śārṅgadeva is known.
Śārṅgadeva refers to himself as one who has removed
distress of the Brahmins through gifts of large wealth, of those
desirous of learning through knowledge, and of the sick
through medicines².
धनदानेन विप्राणामातिं संहृत्य शाश्वतीम् ।
जिज्ञासूनां च विद्याभिर्गदार्तानां रसायनैः ।।
This verse in a way sums up the three facets of Śārṅga-
deva's life viz. the accountant, the scholar, and the
physician.
Some of the verses³ in the introductory Section of
S. R. giving an account of the genealogy seem to be lavishing
praises on the author himself and his ancestors which to
a modern reader may appear immodest. But that was,

1. S. R. 1,2,119.
2. ibid. 1,1,12cd-13ab.
3. ibid. 1,1, 2-14.

Page ( xv )

( xv )
however, part of the culture of his period and was not regard-
ed improper then. On the other hand, the verses at the
conclusion of the work¹ are full of humility and modesty.
3. Patronage of Āyurveda in Yādava Dynasty
Scholarship in Āyurveda was confined not only to
Śārṅgadeva's family. History reveals a host of Āyurvedic
scholars who lived under the patronage of the Yādava Kings.
Furthermore, these scholars were also intimately connected
with Śārṅgadeva's family, for many of them were students
of Bhāskara, Śārṅgadeva's grandfather. In fact it is only
through the works of some of these scholars that we come to
know of Bhāskara as a great name in Āyurveda; Śārṅgadeva
himself does not give any clear indication P. V. Sharma
has ably brought out in his paper², the role of the Yādava
Kings in the promotion of Āyurveda and the contribution
of Bhāskara and other scholars.
Nāgārjuna, the author of Yogaratnamālā commences his
work with a salutation to his guru Bhāskara. Keśava, in the
concluding verses of his work Siddhamantra, describes himself
as the disciple of Bhāskara in Āyurveda and as the recipient of
Siṁharāja's (Siṅghaṇa's) patronage. Though Bhāskara him-
self lived during King Bhillama's reign, his students continued
upto King Siṅghaṇa's reign. It is the reign of King Siṅg-
haṇa which seems to have been the golden period in which
not only Āyurveda but also all the arts and literature flouri-
shed. Many of the Ayurvedic preparations were named after
Siṅghaṇa, e. g. Siṅghaṇa-cūrṇa Siṅghaṇa himself seems to have
had knowledge of Āyurveda since a few of the preparations
are credited to him.
Soḍhala, the author of two works on Āyurveda—Gadani-
graha and Soḍhalanighaṇṭu, might be the same Soḍhala mention-

1. ibid. 7, 1672-1678.
2. See footnote 2. (c) on p. xiii. regarding P. V, Sharma's paper.

( xvi )
ed by Śārṅgadeva as his father.¹ He also lived in the time
of Siṅghaṇa. Since Śārṅgadeva mentions the names of the
Yādava Kings only upto Siṅghaṇa, it appears that he too
compiled his works Adhyātmaviveka and S. R., during the reign
of King Siṅghaṇa.
Siṅghaṇa's death saw some scuffle between the des-
cendants for the throne. The Yādava rule itself lasted only
70 years after Siṅghaṇa died, after which the Muslims took
over. In this period Kṛṣṇa, Mahādeva, and Rāmacandra
were the successors to the throne. Bopadeva, another illus-
trious figure in the Yādava rule lived in this period. He was
the son of Keśava, the author of Siddhamantra. Bopadeva
was a versatile genius and had to his credit a number of
books on such diverse subjects as, Sāhitya, Vyākaraṇa, Āyurveda,
Jyotiṣa, Bhāgavata, including a commentary, 'Prakāśa' on his
father's work 'Siddhamantra'. His contemporary and a close
friend was Hemādri who was the chief minister during this
period; he too was a great scholar of Āyurveda and had
several books and commentaries to his credit
Thus we see that the Yādava rule in the Deccan patro-
nised eminent scholars from various fields and in particular
from Āyurveda. Some of the rulers themselves, we have seen,
were adepts in Āyurveda and other subjects. All this gives
us a picture of the time, place and the environment in which
Śārṅgadeva lived and produced his monumental work.
4. Various Editions of S. R.
Three printed editions of S. R. have been published
till now.
(i) The earliest edition of S. R. was brought out in
1879 by Kālīvara Vedāntavāgīśa and Śāradā Prasāda Ghosa
from Calcutta. This was printed at the New Arya Press,

1. There is however, an element of doubt regarding the two
   Soḍhalas being identical, for Soḍhala of the Āyurveda-nighaṇṭu
   mentions his Gotra as Vatsa whereas Śārṅgadeva belongs to
   the Vṛṣagaṇa Gotra. See introduction to Gada-nigraha edited
   by Gaṅgāsahāya Pandeya
   ( xvii )
   Calcutta. This volume contained only the Svarādhyāya and
   is accompanied by the commentary of Siṁhabhūpāla.¹
   Since we have not had access to this edition, we cannot
   say whether this is a critical one or not.
   (ii) In 1896, S. R. was published in the Ānandāśrama
   Series (No. 35). Edited by Mangesh Ramakrishna Telanga,
   this was brought out in two volumes. The second volume
   appeared in 1897. The first volume consisted of the
   chapters I to V. The remaining two chapters comprised the
   second volume. Kallinātha's commentary to the entire text
   accompanied this edition. Thus, this is the first printed
   edition incorporating the full text of S. R.. This is a critical
   edition in so far as the various available manuscripts and the
   reading of the commentator have been collated.
   (ii) The Adyar Library and Research Centre, Madras,
   has brought out the latest edition of S. R. The entire text
   along with the two commentaries of Kallinātha and Siṁha-
   bhūpāla is edited by Pandit S. Subrahmanya Sastri and is
   published in four volumes. The first volume contains the
   first chapter; the second volume—the second, the third and
   the fourth chapters; the third volume—the fifth and the sixth
   chapters; and the fourth volume—the seventh chapter. The
   first volume appeared in 1943 and the last one in 1953, while
   the second volume was revised by Pandit V. Krishnama-
   charya and published again in 1959.
   Even though Kunhan Raja² in his introduction to the
   first volume, states that both the earlier editions of S. R. and
   other manuscripts have been compared in the preparation
   of the Adyar edition, it fails to be a critical one. Variant
   readings, excepting those found in the commentary of
   Siṁhabhūpāla have not been indicated.
2. See p. vi, Kunhan Raja's introduction to S. R. Vol. I,
   Adyar ed.
3. p. vii Kunhan Raja's introduction to S. R. vol. I. Adyar ed.

( xviii )
5. Commentaries on S. R.
S. R. is the only work on Saṅgītaśāstra that has to its
credit more than one commentary. The editors of the
Calcutta edition are reported¹ to speak of seven commenta-
ries, of which four are in Sanskrit, one in Hindi and two in
Telugu. M. Krishnamachariar in his 'History of Classical
Sanskrit Literature', also mentions seven commentaries. The
authors for six are mentioned as Siṁhabhūpāla, Keśava,
Kallinātha, Haṁsabhūpāla, Kumbhakarṇa and Gaṅgā-
rāma.² Of these, the commentaries of only Siṁhabhūpāla,
Kallinātha and Gaṅgārāma are available today. Reference
to the commentary of Keśava is also found in S. Sud.³
M. Krishnamachariar mentions the name of this commentary
as Kaustubha.⁴ 'Haṁsabhūpāla' seems to be a mistake for
'Siṁhabhūpāla'⁵. The name of the seventh commentary is
Candrikā but the author is not known.⁶ No details regard-
ing the Candrikā commentary or the commentary attributed
to Kumbhakarṇa are known.
(i) Siṁhabhūpāla's Saṅgītasudhākara is the earliest
commentary and is seldom critical; it almost paraphrases the
text. In the introductory verses, Siṁhabhūpāla explaining
the need for such a commentary, stated :
(a) The whole system of music expounded by Bharata
and others had been shattered before the advent
of Śārṅgadeva and it was Śārṅgadeva who consoli-
dated and now he (Siṁhabhūpāla) himself is
trying to make it understandable, out of considera-
tion for the people.⁷

1. ibid. p. x.
2. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
3. S. Sud., p. 152, sl. 408.
4. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
5. Kunhan Raja's Introduction to S. R. Vol. I, p. xi.
6. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 853.
7. Introductory sl, 5-7 of Siṁhabhūpāla's commentary on S. R.
   p. 6.
   ( xix )
   (b) The text of S. R. is profound (gambhīra) and
   complex (viṣama) and is intelligible to very few
   persons; he alone is competent to write a commen-
   tary on it.¹
   (c) It is difficult for one to be adept at both lakṣya and
   lakṣaṇa and hence this commentary (which relates
   lakṣaṇa to lakṣya) is nothing short of an original
   work.²
   (ii) Kallinātha's commentary 'Kalānidhi' is somewhat
   critical. Valuable references to contemporaneous practice
   are found in the rāga chapter. At the same time he leaves
   many sections uncommented, implying either that the
   sections are irrelevant or are too clear to need any com-
   mentary; however. what may have been clear enough to him
   is seldom so to the present day scholar.
   Kallinātha also refers to himself as lakṣya-lakṣaṇa-kovida
   (well-versed). He claims that he has tried to reconcile
   lakṣya and lakṣaṇa and remove the contradictions (virodha).³
   It is obvious that both Siṁhabhūpāla and Kallinātha
   feel that it is a big responsibility to connect the lakṣaṇa of
   S. R. with their contemporary lakṣya. This appears to be a
   subtle way of indicating the cleavage, that had become
   conspicuous in their time, between the two. Though they
   have tried their best to reconcile the cleavage, it becomes
   more obvious by the time of Rāmāmātya, the author of
   Svara-mela-kalānidhi.
   Some pertinent questions arise in connection with
   Kallinātha and his commentary.
   (a) In the chapter on rāga, Kallinātha cites a number
   of examples from the practice (lakṣya) of his time to
   bring out the non-conformity of the contemporary
8. ibid. sl. 11.
9. ibid. sl. 12.
10. Kallinātha's introductory verses to his commentary on S. R.
    sl. 13-14.

( xx )
lakṣya to the lakṣaṇa of the grāma-rāga-s etc. describ-
ed in S. R.¹ In this context it is strange that he
does not refer to Vidyāraṇya² whose system of
mela-s had already been propounded. This is all
the more surprising since Vidyāraṇya too had
belonged to the same Vijayanagaram empire of
which Kallinātha was a citizen.
(b) Rāmakṛṣṇa Kavi in his Bharata Kośa states that
Rāmāmātya is the grandson (dauhitra) of Kalli-
nātha.³ One does not know the source from which
Śrī Kavi obtained this information, but it is very
curious that Rāmāmātya does not refer to Kalli-
nātha at all in his entire work. Again, while
Kallinātha frequently asserts his familiarity with
the musical tradition handed down by Bharata,
Mataṅga, Śārṅgadeva etc., i. e., the knowledge of
the 'sampradāya'⁴, Rāmāmātya seems to reveal
a lack of understanding of Śārṅgadeva's work
and his svara system in particular. Students of
history of music wonder how within the time of
Kallinātha and Rāmāmātya the tradition of S. R.
became unfamiliar.
(c) Equally strange is the fact that the author of S.
Sud. should find Vidyāraṇya accessible but
Kallinātha obscure.⁵
(iii) Kumbhakarṇa is now established as the author of
Saṅgītarāja. It is indeed strange that Kumbhakarṇa should
have been noticed as a commentator of S. R. Saṅgītarāja
is an independent work, the scope of which is larger than

1. K. on S. R., 2. 2. 159-160, vol. II, p. 114-116 (Revised edition)
2. Vidyāraṇya is the author of Saṅgītasāra, known to be the first
   work on mela-system and which is no more available.
3. Bharata Kośa, p. 550.
4. cf. K on S. R. 1, 4, 15ab-16, vol. I, p. 108; K on S. R.
   5.237-238 vol. III, p. 135 ln. 12-13.
5. S. Sud., p. 152.
   ( xxi )
   that of S. R. in some respects. However, the bulk of its
   contents is an elaboration of S. R. and hence it may be called
   a commentary in an informal sense. It is, however, not known
   on what source this reference was based.
6. A manuscript of Gaṅgārāma's Hindi commentary
   'Saṅgīta-setu' is deposited in the library of the palace of the
   former Prince of Kashi, in Ramnagar, Varanasi.¹ The work
   is more of a translation, though some independent obser-
   vations or explanations of the commentator are found here
   and there². Indication of the verse or group of verses
   forming a unit of translation is also given with the initial
   word (pratīka), e. g., Brahmeti for the opening verse of the
   work.
   The order of Vādyādhyāya and Nartanādhyāya having
   been reversed, the commentary ends with the Vādyādhyāya³.
   The last colophon reads :
   इति श्री महाराजाधिराज श्री महाराजा श्री राजा बहादुर सीतारामचंद्र
   कृपापात्राधिकारी विश्वनाथ सिंह जू देव तदाज्ञा-प्रयुक्त-श्रीमाथुरकुलमणि
   तुलारामगर्भ-समुद्भूत-गंगाराम-कृत-संगीतसेतौ वाद्याध्यायः षष्ठः (सप्तमः ?)
   समाप्तिमगमत् तदेतद्विदुषां प्रीतये भूयात् ॥
   संवत् १९०२ के साल मिती भाद्रवदी ८ समाप्यः ॥
   श्री नृपमणे विसुनाथ तव मोद हेत सुख पाइ । लाला दौलत लिखत
   वाद्याध्याय बनाइ ॥
   The colophon gives the following information :-
   (a) The date of the work is Saṁvat 1903, i. e., 1903-
   57 = 1846 A. D.
   1 . A transcript of the same has been prepared by the Research
   Section of the Department of Musicology, B. H. U.
7. There is reference to Kenopaniṣad in the commentary to
   S. R. 1. 2, verse 18-20
   'Anāhata' is explained as that which is not the product of an
   attack or striking anywhere.
   In the context of Sādhāraṇa there are references to Saṅgīta-
   pārijāta and Nāradīyaśikṣā
8. This could have been the mistake of the copyist.

( xxii )

(b) Visvanath Singh is the name of the commentator's
patron, obviously the prince of Rewan, who was a
great scholar and patron of literature and arts.
(c) The author hails from Mathura.
(d) The language of the commentary is Brajabhāṣā.
(e) The scribe appears to be Lala Daulat.
Critical approach seems to be wanting in this commen-
tary. There appears to have been no attempt to interpret
the concepts in the light of current practice.
6. General Scheme and Style of the Work
(a) Objective :—Śārṅgadeva states the following four
reasons for writing S. R.¹
(i) Akhilalokānāṁ tāpatrayajihīrṣayā—to liberate every-
one from the three kinds of pain, adhibhautika
(physical), ādhyātmika (psychological), and ādhidai-
vika (natural calamities).
(ii) Śāśvatāya-dharmāya—to uphold the eternal dharma
(virtue).
(iii) Kīrtyai—for obtaining fame.
(iv) niḥśreyasāptaye—for achieving liberation.
(b) Scheme :—S. R. is devoted to the delineation of
saṅgīta—a composite of gīta, vādya and nṛtta. Śārṅgadeva
has consolidated and arranged in seven chapters the exposi-
tion of the entire saṅgīta. Six chapters are devoted to music
and the last one to dance. Music, independent of drama,
had apparently become crystallised by the time of Śārṅga-
deva.
Following is the list of the various chapters and their
contents. Since the present volume of the translation includes
only the first chapter, the others will be discussed in the
introduction to the respective volumes.

1. S. R. 1. 1. 13cd-14.

( xxiii )

CHAPTER I : SVARAGATĀDHYĀYA
The first chapter is confined to the treatment of svara,
i. e., the tonal aspect. It is further divided into eight sections
(prakaraṇa-s). They are :
(i) Padārthasaṅgraha prakaraṇa :—Genealogy of the
author, the ancient authorities (ācārya-s) to whom the author
is indebted, and table of contents.
(ii) Piṇḍotpatti-prakaraṇa : Genesis of the human body
combining the Vedāntic, Āyurvedic and Haṭhayogic views.
(iii) Nāda - sthāna - śruti-svara - jāti-kula-daivata-ṛṣi-cchand-
rasa-prakaraṇa : Nādopāsanā, the production of nāda in the
human body according to Śikṣā-s; 22 śruti-s; sāraṇā*; svara
and its definition; śruti-jāti-s* : names of 22 śruti-s*; śuddha-
vikṛta svara-s; association of animal-cries with svara-s; four
kinds of svara-s—vādi-saṁvādi-vivādi-anuvādi; assignment¹ of
kula, varṇa (caste), varṇa (colour), janmabhūmi (birthplace), ṛṣi
(seers), devatā (gods), chandas (metres) and rasa (sentiments) to
svara-s.
(iv) Grāma-mūrcchanā-krama-tāna prakaraṇa: Three grāma-s;
mūrcchanā-s; krama-s; śuddha-tāna-s; kūṭa-tāna-s; prastāra; khaṇḍa-
meru and the mode of computing naṣṭa and uddiṣṭa; names of
śuddha-tāna-s
(v) Sādhāraṇa-prakaraṇa: svara-sādhāraṇa; its four varie-
ties—kākalī, antara, ṣaḍja, madhyama—and the process of
obtaining the 12 vikṛta svara-s; jāti-sādhāraṇa.
(vi) Varṇa-alaṅkāra-prakaraṇa : four varṇa-s; alaṅkāra-s.
The number of alaṅkāra-s in S. R. is more than those
mentioned in earlier treatises. However in S. R. the term
alaṅkāra has a restricted usage and refers only to the melodic
motif, whereas in N. S. the term comprehended 'kampa' also.
* marked on topics implies that either the author provides the
first available record of the respective tradition or has his own
way of treatment.

1. This body of lakṣaṇa combines the influence of vedic and
   tantric tradition.

( xxiv )

By Śārṅgadeva's time kampa and its varietes had acquired
the name gamaka.
(vii) Jāti-prakaraṇa : Śuddha-jāti-s; vikṛtā-jāti-s; vikṛtā-
saṁsargajā-jāti-s; characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of jāti-s; treatment
of individual jāti-s and their respective prastāra-s.
One may ask why jāti-s should have been treated in
the chapter on svara while treatment of rāga has been taken
up in a separate chapter. This is because rāga had become
fully developed by the time of Śārṅgadeva and its large
number demanded a separate chapter.
(viii) Gīti-prakaraṇa : Kapāla-s and kambala; gīti-s.
CHAPTER II : RĀGAVIVEKĀDHYĀYA
This chapter is divided into two prakaraṇa-s.
(i) Grāmarāga - uparāga - rāga-bhāṣā - vibhāṣā -antarabhāṣā-
viveka-prakaraṇa.
(ii) Rāgāṅgādinirṇaya-prakaraṇa.
CHAPTER III : PRAKĪRṆAKĀDHYĀYA
Lakṣaṇa-s of vāggeyakāra-s, gāyana-bheda: śabda-bheda etc.;
śārīra-lakṣaṇa etc.; gamaka; sthāya; ālapti.
Most of the material included in this chapter represents
developments of the post-Bharata period.
CHAPTER IV : PRABANDHĀDHYĀYA
Definition of gīta and its division into gāndharva and
gāna; constituents of prabandha; description of individual
prabandha-s, guṇa and doṣa of gīta.
Prabandha-s definitely represented music independent of
drama.
CHAPTER V : TĀLĀDHYĀYA
Mārga tāla-s; gītaka-s; deśī tāla-s; pratyaya of deśī tāla-s.

( xxv )

CHAPTER VI : VĀDYĀDHYĀYA
Structure, modes of playing and the compositions
pertaining to tata, śuṣira, avanaddha, and ghana vādya-s.
S. R.'s treatment of all the vādya-s in one single chapter
is a distinct departure from Bharata's scheme where the
tata and śuṣira are taken along with the chapters pertaining
to svara and the others treated separately.
CHAPTER VII : NARTANĀDHYĀYA
Elements of nṛtta; dance forms; treatment of nine rasa-s
(c) Style : Śārṅgadeva presents the subject in a concise
and precise manner. His treatment is devoid of any ‘śāstrārtha’
style, i. e., there is no argumentative approach. Very rarely
do we come across some sort of discussion. For instance,
after describing śruti and svara, the author himself raises a
doubt—"if svara-s are effected only on the 4th. (7th, 9th.....)
and other śruti-s, then how could the previous śruti-s, i. e.,
3rd. (2nd., 1st. or 6th., 5th.) etc. be said to contribute to it
(svara) ?"¹ The author then answers the question himself.
Similarly, while pointing out the exceptional case of pañcamī
jāti with regard to the observance of the rule relating to the
weak notes and the ṣāḍava-auḍuva formations, he brings in the
concepts of parisaṅkhyā and vidhi of the Mīmāṁsā school of
Philosophy.²
In conciseness of expression and as regards consolida-
tion of earlier lakṣaṇa, Śārṅgadeva can be compared with
Mammaṭa, the author of Kāvyaprakāśa.
7. Consolidation and Supplementation of lakṣaṇa from
earlier and contemporary sources
Śārṅgadeva in the introductory section of the first
chapter of S. R. lists a number of earlier authorities, the
essence of whose views, he states, he is presenting in his
work.³ A detailed and a comparative study of S. R. and the

Footnotes:

1. S. R. 1. 3, 25c-27ab.
2. ibid. 1. 7. 57 cd 59ab.
3. ibid. 1. 1. 15-21ab

( xxvi )

( xxvi )
earlier texts bears this out. Of the earlier authorities listed
by him, works of only some are available today; they are—
Bharata, Dattila, Mataṅga, Bhoja, Abhinavagupta,
Someśvara, Nānyadeva and Jagadekamalla.
It is, however, not to be surmised that Śārṅgadeva has
consolidated all that has been stated in the earlier works. He
has been extremely judicious, discriminating, and selective
in incorporating the lakṣaṇa from the earlier sources. He
has left out some portions from the works of Bharata and
others. For instance, the entire section on dhruvā-s dealt with
in N. S. has been omitted in S. R. Details regarding the
reportoire of drums described by Bharata have been left out
and instead we have the delineation of vādya-prabandha-s.
Śārṅgadeva has also chosen not to include the polemic dis-
cussion on the relation between svara and śruti given in
Bṛhaddeśī and has ignored the reference to the twelve svara-
mūrcchanā-s mentioned in it.
We shall also state here some of the points on which
Śārṅgadeva seems to have been influenced by the earlier
writers or incorproated the current tradition of lakṣaṇa lakṣya.
(i) Bharata and Dattila : Svara, śruti, grāma, mūrcchanā,
jāti, gīti, tāla (mārga-tāla), gītaka-s.
Much of the material in the Nartanādhyāya has been
based on N. S. but very little from it is reflected in the
Vādyādhyāya.
(ii) Mataṅga : (i) Names of śuddha-tāna-s.
(ii) Viniyoga of the jāti-s, mentioning of
mūrcchanā-s in them and the prastāra-s
for them.
(iii) Rāga-classification and the lakṣaṇa-s
of individual rāga-s.
(iii) Abhinavagupta : Abhinavagupta's influence on
Śārṅgadeva has been enormous. Mostly the influence has
been very subtle but sometimes it becomes obvious also.
Unlike in the case of other sources the influence is not so

( xxvii )

( xxvii )
much in terms of information but in terms of elucidation of
concepts. For instance, Śārṅgadeva's definition of svara¹ is
clearly seen to be based on that of Abhinavagupta.
(iv) Someśvara : Some of the topics dealt with in
the prakīrṇaka chapter could have been taken from the Gīta-
vinoda section of Mānasollāsa. e. g. gamaka-s, guṇa and doṣa
of musicians.
(v) Nānyadeva : The verbal texts accompanying
the jāti-prastāra-s, details of Kapāla-gāna-s etc. are for the
first time seen in Bharatabhāṣya. Thus it could have been
the source for Śārṅgadeva.
(vi) Contemporary tradition of lakṣaṇa—both written
and oral.
Information on sthāya-s and gamaka-s must have also
been obtained from some contemporary oral tradition. We
come across certain deśī names in the sthāya-s. Contempo-
rary works like Saṅgītasamayasāra of Pārśvadeva also list these
names. So these names must have been current at that
time in lakṣya.
Details of deśī tāla-s too must have come from some
oral tradition (if not from Saṅgītacūḍāmaṇi of Jogadekamall).
(e) Incorporation from current lakṣya
In the svara chapter very little from current lakṣya has
been incorporated. In the description of the characteristics
of aṁśa in jāti-s Śārṅgadeva adds that the aṁśa can be its
own saṁvādī, anuvādī etc.², implying that rāga-s where the
vādī has no saṁvādī (like our contemporary pūriyā, māravā
and sohanī, where neither śuddha-madhyama nor pañcama are
present), the vādī is its own saṁvādī. In the description of
sthāya-s and rāga-s also Śārṅgadeva lists some which he calls
‘adhunā-prasiddha’ probably indicating their use in the
current lakṣya.

1. S. R. 1, 3, 24cd-25ab.
2. ibid. 1, 7, 33.

( 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.

( 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.

( xxxii )
Period I :—Primary and Formative—2000 B. C.
to 500 A. D.
Period II :—Expository and Expansive—600 A. D.
to 1200 A. D.
Period III :—Reconciliatory and Revaluative—1300
A. D. to 1750 A. D.
Period IV :—Critical and Interpretative—1750 A. D.
onwards.
Śārṅgadeva occupies a very important position in the
second period. The basic difference in the approach of the
first and the second periods is that whereas the approach of
the former was direct, that is to say, lakṣaṇa was evolved out
of a direct study of lakṣya; and intuitive knowledge and ex-
perience was communicated keeping in view the totality of
human expression through sound at all levels, the approach
of the latter was mainly indirect, that is to say, through
lakṣaṇa and only to some extent direct (taking into account
lakṣya). It is not intended here to degrade the latter appro-
ach. But it is the lakṣaṇa-oriented approach which is res-
ponsible for the separation of the composite concept of svara-
śruti-grāma-mūrcchanā found in N. S. . In the arrangement
of topics in S. R., grāma does not appear in the same praka-
raṇa as śruti and sāraṇā. Again sādhāraṇa is separated from
the description of vikṛta-svara-s. A serious student of today
must bear this difference of approach in mind while studying
the texts of the first period and those of the second.
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks are due to my student Sri. N.
Ramanathan, who has helped in organising the material of
this introduction, and my dear friend, Ranganayaki Ayyangar
in revising the final draft.
Prem Lata Sharma

( xxxiii )
References

1. S. R.—Saṅgītaratnākara, Adyar edn.
2. N. S.—Nāṭyaśāstra, G. O. S. edn.
3. A. B.—Abhinavabhāratī, G. O. S. edn.
4. S. Sud.—Saṅgītasudhā, Music Academy.
5. S. M. K.—Svaramelakalānidhi, Annamalai University edn.
6. R. V.—Rāgavibodha, Adyar edn.
7. K.—Kalānidhi commentary of Kallinātha.
8. Rasa-gaṅgādhara, Kāvya-Mālā edn.
9. Prakāśikā commentary on Vikramorvaśīyam, Osmania Univer-
   sity edn.
10. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, M. Krishnamachariar,
    Motilal Banarsidass.
11. P. V. Sharma, "Yadava Kings, the Great Patrons of Āyurveda
    in the Medieval Times"—Hindi Paper published in 'Vaidya
    Ramanarayana Sharma Abhinandan grantha', Nagpur, 1977.
12. Gada-Nigraha, ed. by Gangasahāya Pāṇḍeya, Pt. I, Chow-
    khamba Sanskrit Series, 1968.
13. The History and Culture of Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya-
    bhavan, vol. V, 2nd. edn. 1966.
14. Saṅgītacintāmaṇi, Hathras.
15. Hindustani Sangit Paddhati vol. IV, Hathras edn.

विषयसूची
प्रथमः स्वरगताध्यायः
श्लोकसङ्ख्या
१. प्रथमं पदार्थसङ्ग्रहप्रकरणम् १-४१ ख
(i) मङ्गलाचरणम् १
(ii) ग्रन्थकर्तृवंशवर्णनम् २-८
(iii) ग्रन्थकृतो वैशिष्ट्यं, ग्रन्थप्रणयनहेतुश्च ९-१४
(iv) पूर्वाचार्यस्मरणम् १५-२१ख
(v) सङ्गीतलक्षणं, तत्र मार्गदेशीविभागश्च २१ग-२४ख
(vi) गीतस्य प्राधान्यम् २४ग-२५ख
(vii) गीत-प्रशंसा २५ग-३०
(viii) ग्रन्थस्थसप्ताध्यायानां वस्तुसंग्रहः ३१-४१ख
२. द्वितीयं पिण्डोत्पत्तिप्रकरणम् १-१६८ख
क. विषयावतारणम् १-३
(i) नादमहिमा १-२
(ii) द्विविधो नादः, पिण्डोत्पत्तिप्रतिपादनौचित्यम् ३
ख. पिण्डोत्पत्तौ दार्शनिकतत्त्वनिरूपणम् ४-२२
(i) ब्रह्मस्वरूपम् ४-५ग
(ii) जीवस्वरूपम् ५घ-८क
(iii) सूक्ष्मशरीरम् ८ख-९ख
(iv) सृष्टिसंहार-प्रवाहः ९ग-१०
(v) जीवब्रह्मणोः सम्बन्धः ११-१२ख
(vi) भौतिकसृष्टिः १२ग-१५
(vii) भौतिकदेहभेदाः १६-१७ख
(viii) मानुषदेहाभिधाने हेतुः १७ग घ
(ix) जीवस्य गर्भाशयेऽवतरणम् १८-२२
ग. पिण्डोत्पत्तावायुर्वेदानुसारिनिरूपणम् २३-११९d
(i) गर्भस्य वृद्धिक्रमः २३-४१
(ii) बालकस्य जन्म ४२
(iii) जीवस्य नित्यता (अनुमिता) ४३
(iv) देहस्य षड्भावाः ४४-५६ख
(v) ...... ५६ग-७१ख
( xxxv )
(vi) त्रिविधदेहानां भेदकथनम् ७१ग-७४
(vii) देहस्य षडङ्गानि ७५क-ख
(viii) देहस्य प्रत्यङ्गानि ७५ग-११९

1. ग्रन्थकृतप्रतिज्ञा (७५ग घ)
2. त्वचः कलाश्च (प्रत्येकं सप्तधा) (७६-७८)
3. धातवः (७९-८०)
4. आशयाः (सप्त) (८१-८२ख)
5. हृदयस्य चेतनस्थानत्वम् (८२ग-८३ग)
6. जीवस्य अवस्थात्रयम् (८३घ-८६ख)
7. नवस्रोतांसि (८६ग-८७)
8. जालानि, कूर्चाः, मांसरज्जवः, सीवन्यश्च (८८-८९)
9. अस्थीनि, तेषां संख्या, भेदाश्च (९०-९२ख)
10. अस्थिसन्धयः, तेषां संख्या, भेदाश्च (९२ग-९४ख)
11. अन्यसन्धीनां संख्या (९४ग घ)
12. स्नायवः (९५-९६)
13. पेश्यः (९७-१००)
14. सिराधमनिकानां संख्या (१०१)
15. मूलसिराः, भिन्नसिराश्च (१०२-१०५ख)
16. रसवाहिन्यो धमन्यः (१०५-११३)
17. मर्मस्थानानि (११४क ख)
18. रोमाणि, श्मश्रु, केशाश्च (११४ग-११६क)
19. देहस्थरसानां मानम् (११६ख-११८)
20. उपसंहारः (११९)
    घ. हठयोगानुसारि निरूपणम् १२०-१६३
    (i) दशचक्राणि १२०-१४५ख
21. आधार-चक्रं, कुण्डलिनी च (१२०-१२२ख)
22. स्वाधिष्ठान-चक्रम् (१२२ग-१२४ख)
23. मणिपूरक-चक्रम् (१२४ग-१२६ख)
24. अनाहत-चक्रम् (१२६ग-१२९ख)
25. विशुद्धि-चक्रम् (१२९ग-१३१ख)
26. ललना-चक्रम् (१३१ग-१३३ख)
27. आज्ञा-चक्रम् (१३३ग-१३४ख)
28. मनश्चक्रम् (१३४ग-१३५)
29. सोम-चक्रम् (१३६-१३८)
30. सहस्रपत्र-चक्रम् (१३९)
31. गीतादिसिद्धौ चक्राणां साधकत्वं
    बाधकत्वञ्च (१४०-१४५ख)

( xxxvi )

( xxxvi )
(ii) ब्रह्मग्रन्थिः १४५ग-१४८
(iii) सुषुम्णा, नाड्यन्तराणि च १४९-१६३ख
ङ. उपसंहारः
नादस्य भुक्तिमुक्तिसाधकत्वम् १६३ग-१६८ख
३. तृतीयं नादस्थानश्रुतिस्वरजातिकुल-
दैवतर्षिच्छन्दोरसप्रकरणम् १-६०ख
क. नादः १-७
(i) नादब्रह्म, तस्योपासना च १-२
(ii) देहे ध्वनेराविर्भावः ३-४
(iii) पञ्चविधो नादः ५
(iv) नादशब्दस्य निर्वक्तिः ६
(v) गीतव्यवहारे त्रिधा नादः ७
ख. श्रुतिः ८-२२
(i) श्रुतिः, तत्सङ्ख्या च ८-१०ख
(ii) चतुःसारणा १०ग-२२
ग. स्वराः २३-६०ख
(i) सप्तस्वराः २३-२४ख
(ii) स्वरलक्षणम् २४ग-२५ख
(iii) श्रुतीनां स्वरकारणत्वम् २५ग-२७ख
(iv) पञ्चजातीषु सप्तस्वरेषु च सनामश्रुतिविभाजनम् २७ग-३८
(v) स्वराणां स्थानत्रयम् ३९क ख
(vi) द्वादशविकृतस्वराः ३९ग-४६ख
(vii) सप्तस्वराणामुच्चारयितारः पशुपक्षिणः ४६ग-४७ख
(viii) वादि-संवादि-विवाद्यनुवादिभेदेन चतुर्विधाः स्वराः ४७ग-५१
(ix) स्वराणां कुल-जाति-वर्ण-दैवतर्षि-च्छन्दो-रस-कथनम् ५२-६०ख
४. चतुर्थं ग्राममूर्च्छनाक्रमतानप्रकरणम् १-६१
क. ग्रामः १-८
(i) ग्रामलक्षणम् १क ख
(ii) द्वौ ग्रामौ (धरातले) १ग-२ख
(iii) षड्जमध्यमग्रामयोर्लक्षणम् २ग-३ख
(iv) गान्धारग्रामः ३ग-५
(v) ग्रामत्रयस्य नामस्वराणां वैशिष्ट्यम् ६-७ख
(vi) ग्रामाणां देवताः ७ग घ
(vii) ग्रामाणां गानकालनियमः ८

( xxxvii )

( xxxvii )
ख. मूर्च्छनाः क्रमाश्च ९-२६
(i) मूर्च्छनालक्षणम् ९
(ii) षड्जमध्यमग्रामस्यमूर्च्छनानां संज्ञाः १०-१२ क
(iii) मूर्च्छनानामारम्भकस्वराः १२ख-१५
(iv) मूर्च्छना-भेदाः १६-१७
(v) मूर्च्छनासङ्ख्यापरिज्ञानोपायः १८
(vi) मूर्च्छनाक्रमाः, तेषां सङ्ख्या च १९-२०ख
(vii) मूर्च्छनानां देवताः २०ग-२२ख
(viii) नारदकथितानि मूर्च्छना-नामानि २२ग-२६
ग. तानाः २७-९०
(i) शुद्धताननिर्माणविधिः, सङ्ख्या च २७-३१

1. शुद्धतानलक्षणम् २७कख
2. षाडवतानाः २७ग-२९ख
3. औडुवतानाः २९ग-३१ख
4. षाडवौडुवतान-मिलितसङ्ख्या ३१गघ
   (ii) कूटताननिर्माणं, तेषां सङ्ख्या च ३२-४९
5. कूटतानलक्षणम् ३२क-ग
6. पूर्णकूटतानानां सङ्ख्या ३२घ-३५क
7. अपूर्णकूटताननिर्माणम् ३५ख-३६
8. अपूर्णकूटतानानां सङ्ख्या ३७-३८
9. एकस्वरादि-कूटतानचतुष्टयस्य नामानि ३९
10. षाडवकूटतानसङ्ख्या ४०-४३क
11. औडुवकूटतान-सङ्ख्या ४३ख-४५ख
12. चतुःस्वरकूटतान-सङ्ख्या ४५ग-४६
13. त्रिस्वरकूटतान-सङ्ख्या ४७-४८क
14. द्वित्वरेकस्वर-कूटतान-सङ्ख्या ४८ख-४९
    (iii) पुनरुक्ताः कूटतानाः, तेषामपनये कूटतान-सङ्ख्या ५०-६०क
    (iv) प्रतिमूर्च्छनं कूटतान-सङ्ख्याज्ञानोपायः ६०ख-६१
    (v) कूटतान-प्रस्तारः ६२-६३ख
    (vi) खण्डमेरुः ६३ग-७१
15. खण्डमेरु-निर्माणम् ६३ग-६६ख
16. उद्दिष्ट-विधिः ६६ग-६८ख
17. नष्ट-विधिः ६८ग-७०
18. खण्डमेरूत एकस्वरादितानानां सङ्ख्या-
    परिज्ञानोपायः ७१