1

Saṅgītapārijāta of Ahōbala: An Introduction 1

(N Ramanathan)

Introduction:
Ahōbala is the author of Saṅgītapārijāta, a work on 'Saṅgīta'. ('Pārijāta' is the name of a celestial flower.) It
appears to have been written in the 17th century and the exact date of its composition and details about the
author, except for the name of his father being Kṛṣṇa Paṇḍita, are not known. Out of the three limbs of 'Saṅgīta',
namely, Gīta, Vādya and Nṛtta, the available editions of the work contain only sections on Gīta (Rāga-Gīta-
kāṇḍa) and Vādya (Vādya-Tāla-kāṇḍa).
Two published editions of Saṅgītapārijāta have been consulted by this author. The first one was published
in 1884 in Kalkatta, edited by Jībānanda Vidyāsāgara. The second one was brought out in 1897 by Śrīdhara
Gōndhalēkara of Pune. While the Kalkatta edition contained only the Rāga-gīta-kāṇḍa ending with the Rāga-
prakaraṇa, the Pune edition, includes the remaining part of Rāga-gīta-kāṇḍa also and the entire Vādya-tāla-
kāṇḍa.
And when we survey the manuscript catalogues for details of Saṅgītapārijāta, we are able to locate one in
Bikaner which contains a 'Nṛtya-kāṇḍa' (PremalathaV 2001). Thus Sangītapārijāta did indeed expound on all the
three components of Saṅgīta, namely, gīta, vādya and nṛtta (nṛtya). A recent research by Katherine Schofield on
a commentary on this text in Persian, also endorses this since the portions on nṛtya also finds discussion
(personal communication).
Ahōbala himself is seen to be responsible for the confusion in the extent and scope of the work. The work
starts with an introduction in which the author invokes Gods who delighted themselves in music. He
acknowledges his indebtedness to ancient authorities like Mataṅga and Kaśyapa. He then lists the topics to be
delineated in the work. This pertains only to the first Kāṇḍa, namely, the Raga-gīta Kāṇḍa. So the fault seems to
lie in the presentation of the table of contents itself, which limits the list of contents itself to that of the first part
'Rāga-gīta Kāṇḍa', without giving any clue regarding the presence of two more kāṇḍa-s in the work. Or else,
from the concluding verse of the portion listing the contents, -
प्रबन्धलक्षणम् चात्र लक्ष्म वाग्गेयकारिणः ।
गायनस्य गुणा दोषा इति काण्डेऽर्थसङ्ग्रहः ।।
we should perhaps take the word 'kāṇḍē' to suggest that other 'kāṅḍa/-s' (parts) too existed.
The colophon at the end of the first Kāṇḍa reads thus –
इति श्रीकृ ष्णपण्डितसुताहोबलपण्डितविरचिते सङ्गीतपारिजाते रागगीतविचारो नाम काण्डः प्रथमः ।
Again in the Gōndhalēkara publication of 1897, the second part has this colophon.
इति श्रीकृ ष्णपण्डितसुताहोबलपण्डितविरचिते सङ्गीतपारिजाते वाद्यतालकाण्डे द्वितीयः समाप्तः ।
समाप्तोऽयम् सङ्गीतपारिजातः ।
The colophon announces the conclusion of the second part of the text. It is unlikely the statement
"samāptō'yam saṅgītapārijātaḥ" was in the original manuscript since Ahōbala did write a third part and quite
likely the statement was supplied by the editor Gōndhalekara, himself.
To draw comparisons, in an earlier text, namely, the Saṅgītaratnākara of Śārṅgadēva, we observe that the
'List of contents' (padārthasaṅgraha) in the introductory section details the contents of the all the seven chapters
that comprise the book, and that the text does include all the seven is well known.
Again, in the 'Saṅgītasudhā' of Raghunātha Nāyaka / Gōvinda Dīkṣita, the 'padārthasaṅgraha' at the
beginning lists contents of all its seven chapters although the available manuscripts and the printed edition have
only the first four chapters.
So it is strange that Ahōbala should choose to make a mention of only the first part and its contents in the
beginning of his work.

1
Published as an article in the Journal Swarbharati 2018, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, New Delhi, pp.31-48
 2

Publication and Biographical Details:

E te Nijenhuis (1977:42) gives a comprehensive list of publications of Ahōbala's Saṅgītapārijāta
1) edited by K. Vēdāntavāgīśa and Ś.P.Ghōṣa, Kalkatta 1879
2) edited by J.Vidyāsāgara, Kalkatta 1884 (noted above)
3) published in SM [Saṅgītamīmāṃsak, Pune] I (1886), no.12
4) published in Aruṇōdaya I (1891), no.10
5) (complete) edited by R. Ś. Gōndhalēkara, 1897
6) with Hindi comm., edited by Kalind, Hathras 1940, 1941, 1971.
7) with Hindi comm., edited by S Kōvid, Hathras, 1956
8) with Bengali translation and notes by Ś.Mitra, Kalkatta 1959

To this could be added a Tamiz translation by Paṇḍita Kṛṣṇamācārya (1951), although there is no
information available regarding the extent of the main text that was covered.
V. Raghavan (1960:22) and following him E te Nijenhuis (1977) have conjectured, on the basis of the name
'Ahōbala,' that he must have hailed from the Southern part of India. Again both scholars do not appear to have
had access to the edition of the Saṅgītapārijāta by Gōndhalēkara. On the basis of contents of the 1884 edition,
Raghavan concludes that the first 'Kāṇḍa' is incomplete, and Nijenhuis on the authority of R Simon's book 'Zur
Chronologie der Indischen Musikliteratur' (1923) speaks of two Kāṇḍa-s and places it in 17 th century based on a
Persian translation by Paṇḍita Dīnānātha written in 1724.
Nijenhuis also adds, "Shortly after Ahobala, Śrīnivāsa may have written his small treatise, the
Rāgatattvavibōdha in imitation of the Saṅgītapārijāta. Its section on the rāgas is a literal quotation from that
work. In the same way, the royal author Hṛdayanārāyaṇa, who ruled at Garrh or Gatadurga (Jubbalpore) about
1667, may have modelled his Hṛdayaprakāśa on the rāga chapter of the Saṅgītapārijāta."
Earlier Viṣṇu Nārāyaṇa Bhātkhaṇḍē (1941:36) had also voiced this opinion, "One thing, however, is
certain, and that is that the book was written sometime after the Sangita Parijata of Ahobala from which Sri
Nivasa takes the greater portion of this material." With regard to Hṛdayaprakāśa, Bhātkhaṇḍē is very objective
when he says, "In this book the author describes the position of the shuddha and vikrita swaras in terms of the
lengths of the sounding strings of the Vina. The classification of the ragas also is instructive and more scientific.
Ahobala in his Sangeet Parijata also, describes his swaras in terms of the lengths of the sounding string as we
shall see hereafter. But we do not know whether he got that idea from Hrdaya's book. Some scholars on the
contrary suspect that Hrdaya took the idea from Ahobala. There is no reliable evidence on the point but there are
two facts which may lend some colour to the last mentioned suspicion. Hrdaya in his Koutuka omits to fix the
position of this shuddha and vikrita swaras in terms of the lengths of the strings. And secondly, Sangeeta
Parijata is a much more elaborate work than the Hrdaya Prakasha. All will depend therefore upon the question
whether or not the Parijat was written before the Prakasha."
Hṛdayanārāyaṇa "was a ruler at Garrh or Gatadurga, i.e., Jubbalpore. He ruled about 1667 A.D." (Raghavan
1961:1)
Bhātkhaṇḍē (1941:31) also adds, "Pārijāta is freely quoted by Bhava Bhatta Pandit in his well known work
Sangita Anupa Vilasa". Bhāvabhaṭṭa also quotes Hṛdayanārāyaṇa's works and the works of Bhāvabhaṭṭa are
assigned a date between 1674 and 1709 (Raghavan 1961:1).
Thus among the four authors, we have historical information about two, namely, Hṛdayanāṛayaṇa and
Bhāvabhaṭṭa. Since Bhāvabhaṭṭa (1921), in his Anūpasaṅgītavilāsa, quotes rāgalakṣaṇa verses from
Saṅgītapārijāta, Rāgatattvavibōdha and Hṛdayaprakāśa, all the other three scholars, obviously, preceded him in
time. But it is difficult to place these three indisputably in any chronological order. Bhātkhaṇḍē would like to
place Ahōbala's work to have been written first, because of the vast nature of the work. However for
Bhātkhaṇḍē, Saṅgītapārijāta did not extend beyond the first part, namely, the Rāga-gīta-vicāra-kāṇḍa. Both
Rāgatattvavibōdha and Hṛdayaprakāśa (and also Hṛdayakautuka) dealt only with the description of various rāga-
s. This is not surprising since many works, restricting themselves to this area, had come to be written in the 16 th
and 17th centuries, as for instance, the Svaramēlakalānidhi of Rāmāmātya, Sadrāgacandrōdaya, Rāgamālā,
Rāgamañjarī (all three by Paṇḍarīka Vīṭṭhala), Rāgavibōdha of Sōmanātha and Rāgataraṅgiṇi of Lōcana. Hence
 3

merely on the basis of Saṅgītapārijāta having a large scope and extent, it cannot be placed earliest among the
three works.
The following table cites a few passages that have almost identical readings in the three texts, namely,
Saṅgītapārijāta, Rāgatattvavibōdha and Hṛdayaprakāśa. To any student who is conversant with these texts, it
will be clear that the text in the first two works has large number of errors. In the case of Saṅgītapārijāta, the
later publication by Gōndhalēkara has been relied upon as it contains two of the three sections of the work, as
compared to the earlier one which has only one and that too with some portions left out in the end. In the case of
Rāgatattvavibōdha, two publications have come out, one in 1918 and the other one in 1956. The first edition has
better readings and besides, the editor of the second one seems to be unaware of the earlier publication.
Saṅgītapārijāta Rātattvavibōdha Hṛdayaprakāśa
page/verse page/verse page/line
catuḥśrutisamāyuktāḥ SPar 6/68 RTV 4/31
svarasya hētubhūtāyā SPar 35/314 RTV 5/35
bhāgatryānvitē - - - - SPar 35/319–35/325 RTV 5/41-6/47b HP 3/1-9
dhastīvratara iṣyatē
svarajñānavihīnēbhyō - - - - SPar 36/327 RTV 6/47cdef
svarasthāpanakāraṇam
svaraḥ svōttaragāmi - - - - SPar 6/69c-73 RTV6/51-7/56b
pūrvaśabdēna manyatē
ārōhaścāvarōhaśca - - - - SPar 9/105–10/111 RTV 7/57-8/63
tvārōhādyakamūhyatām
ēkatrā''sphalanamiva - - - - SPar 34/307-313 RTV 8/72c-83b
granthavistārabhītinā
mēlaḥ svarasamūhaḥ - - - - SPar 36/330 RTV 9/83
samudāyaḥ prakīrtitaḥ

D B Kshirasagar in his monograph "A Comparative Study of the Rāgatattvavibōdha of Śrīnivāsa and the
Saṅgītapārijāta of Ahōbala" discusses Bhātkhaṇḍē-s views and decides to place the three authors in this
chronological order, namely, Ahōbala, Hṛdayēśa and Śrīnivāsa (1973:5), although the reasoning does not appear
to be very sound. For his study, the author seems to have relied on the 1884 edition of Saṅgītapārijāta and the
1956 GOS edition of Rāgatattvavibōdha.
Comparing the approach to the concept of 'Svara' in the two texts, the author cites the definitions.
श्रुतयः स्युः स्वराभिन्नाः श्रावणत्वेन हेतुना । [Ahōbala 1887:4:40ab]
Author's translation: "Because of both being heard and recognised by the ear the Śrutis are not different
from the Svaras. (1973:9)
स्वरेभ्यः श्रुतयो भिन्नाः श्रावणत्वेन हेतुना । [Śrīnivāsa 1956:3:19cd]
Author's translation: "Śrīnivāsa clearly explains that Svaras are different from the Śrutis as the former are
audible in contrast to the latter:-
However in the 1918 edition of Rāgatattvavibōdha, the reading conveys the same sense as in
Saṅgītapārijāta.
स्वरेभ्यः श्रुतयोऽभिन्नाः श्रावणत्वेन हेतुना । [Śrīnvāsa 1956:3:19cd]
In other words, Rāgatattvavibōdha and even Saṅgītapārijāta badly require a revised critical edition.
One important point to be noted is that the three works of Bhāvabhaṭṭa, namely, Anūpasaṅgītavilāsa (1921),
Anūpasaṅgītaratnākara (1919a) and Anūpasaṅgītāṅkuśa (1909) had expounded all the three aspects of Saṅgīta,
namely, Gīta, Vādya and Nṛtta as learnt from the descriptive catalogues of manuscripts. But the printed editions
of all the three texts cover only the aspect of Gīta. It is possible that the other parts of Bhāvabhaṭṭa's works had
quoted from the Vādya and Nṛtta portions of Saṅgītapārijāta too.
Further, the Saṅgītasāra by Mahārāja Savai Pratāpa Siṅgha Dēva (1912) in Hindi, written in the period
1779-1804, also quotes extensively, passages from Saṅgītapārijāta, with and without acknowledging the source
and these cover areas of Gīta and Vādya.

Now, let us proceed to review the contents of the text as available in the publication.
 4

1. Rāga-gīta Vicāra Kāṇḍa

This part of the work starts with the description of the production of Nāda, two forms of Nāda - Āhata and
Anāhata, division of nāda into mandra, madhya and tāra, Śruti, Śruti-jāti and goes on to the subject of Svara and
its Śuddha and Vikṛta varieties.
On the basis of śruti, the unit of tonal measurement, the intervals of śuddhasvara-s are defined. The
śuddhasvara-s are positioned on the same śruti positions as found in the earlier mēla texts. Regarding vikṛta
svara-s Ahōbala states that if the interval of a svara is augmented by one śruti it is termed Tīvra; if augumented
by 2 śruti-s it is Tīvratara; by 3 śruti-s it is Tīvratama; and by 4 śruti-s it is Atitīvratama. Of course the
traditional names are also retained by the author, namely,
Tīvra-gāndhāra = Sādhāraṇa-gāndhāra
Tīvratara-gāndhāra = Antara-gāndhāra
Tivratama-gāndhāra = Mṛdu-madhyama
Similarly the names Kaiśika-niṣāda, kākalī-niṣāda and Mṛdu-ṣaḍja are retained.
Tīvra-niṣāda = Kaiśika-niṣāda
Tīvratara-niṣāda = Kākalī-niṣāda
Tīvratama-niṣāda = Mṛdu-ṣaḍja
On the other hand if the interval of a svara is reduced by one śruti, the svara is termed 'Kōmala'; if reduced by
2 śruti-s it is 'Pūrva'. The table below lists all the svara varieties.
ŚUDDHA-VIKṚTA SVARA-S
Śruti No. Śuddha-svara Vikṛta-svara (kōmala) Vikṛta-svara (tīvra)
1 Tīvra-Niṣāda
2 Tīvratara-Niṣāda
3 Mṛdu-Ṣaḍja Tīvratama-Niṣāda
4 Ṣaḍja
5 Pūrva-Ṛṣabha
6 Kōmala-Ṛṣabha
7 Ṛṣabha Pūrva-Gāndhāra
8 Kōmala-Gāndhāra Tīvra-Ṛṣabha
9 Gāndhāra Tīvratara-Ṛṣabha
10 Tīvra-Gāndhāra
11 Tīvratara-Gāndhāra
12 Mṛdu-Madhyama Tīvratama-Gāndhāra
13 Madhyama Atitīvratama-Gāndhāra
14 Tīvra-Madhyama
15 Tīvratara-Madhyama
16 Mṛdu-Pañcama Tīvratama-Madhyama
17 Pañcama
18 Pūrva-Dhaivata
19 Kōmala-Dhaivata
20 Dhaivata Pūrva-Niṣāda
21 Kōmala-Niṣāda TĪvra-Dhaivata
22 Niṣāda TĪvratara-Dhaivata

In the presentation of Śuddha and Vikṛta svara-s, texts commencing with the Svaramēlakalānidhi of
Rāmāmātya, have used prefixes like pañcaśruti-ṛṣabha and ṣaṭśruti-ṛṣabha for svara-s whose intervals get
augmented. Rāgamañjarī of Paṇḍarīka Viṭṭhala uses prefixes like Ēkagatika-ṛṣabha and Dvigatika-ṛṣabha.
Rāgavibōdha of Sōmanātha (1945:25:1,32) uses prefixes like Tīvra-ṛṣabha and Tīvratara-ṛṣabha, a practice
which we come across in Saṅgītapārijāta too.
However in addition, Saṅgītapārijāta also mentions vikṛta varieties of a svara where there is a diminishing
in the size of the interval of a śuddhasvara, and thus we come across prefixes like 'Kōmala' and 'Pūrva'. One
could argue that the earlier texts also speak of diminished intervals through prefixes like 'Cyuta', 'Laghu' and
'Mṛdu'. However these prefixes actually denote the vikṛta variety of the previous svara. Thus Cyuta-madhyama,
Laghu-madhyama and Mṛdu-madhyama denote the vikṛta variety of a Gāndhāra.
 5

Thus the mention of vikṛta-svara varieties obtained through diminishing the interval of a śuddha-svara, is
regarded (Bhātkhaṇḍē 1934:28) as a landmark in the history of the Śuddha-vikṛta svara system pertaining to the
Northern Music, created by texts like Rāgatattvavibōdha and Saṅgītapārijāta. Important point is also the location
of the Śuddhasvara-s, as for instance, that of the Ṛṣabha, which will be discussed below.
After the Śuddha and Vikṛta svara-s the Vādī, Samvādī, Vivādī and Anuvādī forms of svara-s are mentioned.
Then the external attributes to svaras like the Family <Kula>, Lineage <vaṃśa>, Class/Caste <Jāti>, Colour
<varṇa>, Continents/Islands <dvīpa>, Seers <darśin>,Deities <dēvatā>, Metres <chanda> and Rasa are
mentioned.

Grāma and Mūrchanā:

After the Svara, the Grāma and its three forms of Seven-svara organisations, Ṣaḍja, Madhyama and
Gāndhāra are listed and the different intervallic sequences in them are described.
Mūrchanā is delineated in detail. After listing the traditional Seven mūrchanā-s of Ṣaḍjagrāma, new
varieties are formed by replacing the śuddhasvara-s by vikṛtasvara-s, one by one. Similarly, in the
Madhyamagrāma too, many mūrchanā varieties are formed. In short, a huge number of Prastāra-s of mūrchanā
are arrived at and the methods of arriving at the form of a Prastāra from its Serial number, known as 'Naṣṭa' and
computing the serial number when the Prastāra form is given, which is 'Uddiṣṭa' are described.
Mūrchanā-s classified under two Grāma-s are known from quite early period, from texts like Dattilam and
Nāṭyaśāstra. 14 Mūrchanā-s and 84 Tāna-s (devoid of one or two svara-s) are mentioned in them. Mūrchana
concept was adapted for the music described in texts like Bṛhaddēśī, Saṅgītaratnākara and Saṅgītarāja, where
Murchana-s were computed with Antara-gāndhāra and Kākalī-Niṣāda replacing the corresponding grāmika
svara-s. Kūṭa-tāna-s denoted combinations (prastāra-s) that could have svara-s arranged in any order and also
formations with 7, 6, 5, 4 3, 2 svara-s and even one svara. These were reproduced by texts in later centuries, as
for instance, the Saṅgītasudhā and the Rāgavibōdha. Among these two texts embracing the Mēla systems,
Rāgavibōdha works out prastāra based on Śuddhasvara-s and the Vikṛtasvara-s and 960 mēlā-s are computed.
(However for the purposes of classifying rāga-s only 23 are used.)
The Saṅgītapārijāta under the subject of 'Mūrchanā', presents prastāra-s based on Śuddhasvara-s and
Vikṛtasvara-s of the Mēla system. Thus in the seven mūrchanā-s commencing successively with sa, ni, dha etc.,
by replacing śuddha-ṛṣabha successively with Pūrva-ṛṣabha, Kōmala-ṛṣabha and Tīvra-ṛṣabha twenty-one more
mūrchanā-s are obtained. e.g.,

sa ri-śu ga-śu ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu

sa ri-pū ga-śu ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-kō ga-śu ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-tī ga-śu ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu

In this way Prastāra-s with vikṛta varieties of four svara-s (Ga, Ma, Dha & Ni) successively replacing the
corresponding śuddhsvara are computed.
Then Prastāra-s with vikṛtasvara varieties replacing the śuddhasvara-s of 2 (Ri-Ga, Ri-Ma etc.), 3, 4 and 5
svara-s are formed. e.g.,
sa ri-śu ga-śu ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-pū ga-pū ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-pū ga-kō ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-pū ga-tī ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-pū ga-tī-tara ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu
sa ri-pū ga-tī-tama ma-śu pa dha-śu ni-śu

Ahōbala (1897:13-15:154-185) then proceeds to compute the mūrchanā-s of the Ṣāḍava type, namely, those
with 6 svara-s, omitting one by one, ni, dha, pa, ma, ga and ri. These are further subjected to replacement of
śuddhasvara-s by corresponding vikṛtasvara-s.
 6

Finally, the Auḍuva type mūrchanā-s are taken up.

In the Caturdaṇḍīprakāśikā, Vēṅkaṭamakhī (2002:170:3,72cd-78ab) too speaks of deriving seven mūrchanā-
s from each of his 72 mēlā-s. However he does not refer to 6 or 5 svara mēla-s as does Ahōbala.
These mūrchanā-s of the three types, namely, Sampūrṇa, Ṣāḍava and Auḍuva are later taken by Ahōbala, as
the base for computing Mēla-prastāra, as we shall see below.

Varṇa and Alaṅkāra:

After explaining the four Varṇa-s, Sthāyi, Ārōhī and Avarōhī and Sañcārī, denoting the four kinds of
movements that melodies broadly take, a detailed description of Alaṅkāra-s is presented. Ahōbala's Alaṅkāra-s
include some new ones too.
Initially the Alaṅkāra-s that have been described traditionally in the texts like the Saṅgītaratnākara,
classified under the four Varṇa-s, Sthāyī, Ārōhī, Avarōhī and Sañcārī Varṇa-s are described. Then a set of seven
alaṅkāra-s intended for songs <gīta> which are set to tāla-s are described, followed by a set of five alaṅkāra-s
for Rāga enhancement.
While the traditional set of Alaṅkāra-s described by Ahōbala almost coincide with those described in
Saṅgītaratnākara, for the set of seven Sthāyi-alaṅkāra-s, interestingly, equivalent new names are given. In it not
clear where these names came from.
prasannādi bhadra
prasannānta nanda
prasannādyanta jita
prasanna-madhya sōma
kramarēcita grīva
prastāra bhāla
prasāda prakāśaka

After describing the 56 Alaṅkāra-s classified under the four varṇa-s, Śārṅgadēva furnishes seven more. In
the same style Ahōbala too describes seven more, but these are different in nature. These are presented below.
Gītōpayōgī-alaṅkāra:
No. Name Tāla Prastāra
1 Indranīla Dhruva sa ri ga ma ga ri sa ri ga ri sa ri ga ma
2 Mahāvajra Maṇṭha sa ri ga ri sa ri sa ri ga ma
3 Nirdōṣa Rūpaka sa ri sa ri ga ma
4 Sira Jhampa sa ri sa ri ga sa ri ga ma
5 Kōkila Tripuṭa sa ri ga sa ri ga ma
6 Āvarta Aḍḍa sa ri ga ri sa ri sa ri sa ri ga ma
7 Sadānanda Laghu sa ri ga ma
These alaṅkāra-s, to a great extent, correspond to the well-known Alaṅkāra-s based on the Sūlādi tāla-s,
mentioned even in Karṇāṭaka music of today. The tāla-s used in Sūlādi songs originating in the South-west
region, are described by Vēṅkaṭamakhī (2002:172-177) in his Caturdaṇḍīprakāsikā along with their structural
details. It is strange that Ahōbala does not mention Sūlādi in this context unless we take the term 'gīta' in the
concluding half verse to allude to those songs in the Prabandha tradition.
गीतोपयोगिनः सप्ततालयुक्ताः प्रदर्शिताः । Ahōbala (1897:31:288ab)
Vēṅkaṭamakhī (2002:176:3,111cd-112) too uses the term 'gīta' in this context.
एतान् ध्रुवादिकान् सप्ततालान् सूलादिसंज्ञकान् ।।
तालं च झोम्पटाख्यानं रगणं च क्वचित् क्वचित् ।
गीतप्रकरणेषु गीतेषु विनिवेशयेत् ।।
However Ahōbala (1897:128-131:215-248ab) does mention these 'Sūḍādi tāla-s' and their structures
towards the end of the Tāla section in the Vādya-tāla-kāṇḍa2.

2
The text is corrupt and we can get a better of idea of Ahōbala's from the description in Saṅgītasāra (Pratāpa Simha 1912:234-308) which
seems to draw from the Saṅgītapārijāta and also uses the term 'sūḍādika'.
 7

Ahōbala perhaps wanted to give a distinct to identity and status to the Seven Alaṅkāra-s which had
nevertheless been composed in that period, as a pre-requisite for students learning the Sūlādi compositions.
After these Alaṅkāra-s, Indranīla and others, the author lists five more alaṅkāra-s, which he says are useful
for rāga-s. The alaṅkāra-s present some interesting patterns.
Rāga-alaṅkāra:
1. Cakrākāra:
ri ri ri ri sa ri ri ri
ga ga ga ga ri ga ga ga
2 Java:
sa ri ga ma pa dha ni sa ni dha pa ma ga ri sa
sa ri ga ma pa dha ni dha pa ma ga ri sa
sa ri ga ma pa dha pa ma ga ri sa
sa ri ga ma pa ma ga ri sa
sa ri ga ma ga ri sa
sa ri ga ri sa
sa ri sa
3 Śaṅkha
sa sa ni dha
ni ni dha pa
4 Padmākāra:
sa ri sa sa sa ri ga ga
ri ga ri ri ri ga ma ma
5 Vārida:
sa ni ni ni
sa dha dha dha
sa pa pa pa
Note: The pattern in alaṅkāra no.2 above, namely, in Java, is in modern Karṇāṭaka music popularly referred
to as a variety of 'Yati', a tāla concept applied to syllabic patterns. This is an erroneous usage and this pattern is
actually an Alaṅkāra as rightly depicted in Saṅgītapārijāta.

Gamaka:
Gamaka seems to have been mentioned earliest in Bṛhaddēśī and all the later texts describe the varieties.
The set of Fifteen Gamaka-s of Saṅgītaratnākara has been commonly accepted and reproduced by later texts.
Tiripa Sphurita Kampita Līna Āndōlita
Vali Tribhinna Kurula Āhata Ullāsita
Plāvita Humphita Mudrita Nāmita Miśrita

The texts reproduce the same list of Gamaka-s, till we come to Rāgavibōdha which introduces a slightly
different concept of Vādanabhēda with 'Gamaka' as one of its twenty varieties.
Pratihati Āhati Anuhati Ahati Pīḍā
Dōlana Vikarṣa Gamaka Kampa Gharṣaṇa
Mudrā Sparśa Naimnya Pluti Druti
Paratā Uccatā Nijatā-parata Nijatā-uccatā Śama
Mṛdu Kaṭhina

The Gamaka-s mentioned by Ahōbala are different from the traditional ones and the description of each has
been presented based on modes of playing them on stringed instruments. In the printed texts the reading is
corrupt and missing. Based on similar passages in a contemporary text Rāgatattvavibōdha of Śrīnivāsa and on
quotations in Anūpasaṅgītāṅkuśa of Bhāvabhaṭṭa the following list of Gamaka-s has been presented.
Huṃkṛta Ēkāsphālana Cyāvita Śarīra Gharṣaṇa
Avagharṣaṇa Vikarṣaṇa Naimnya Hata Hatāhata
Hatōttarāhata Tiripa Dvirāhata Ḍhālu Anāhata or Śānta
 8

Mudrā or Huṃphita Agrasthāna Kartari

On the other hand Saṅgītasāra of Pratāpa Siṅgha (1912:4:9-14) paraphrases the description of the twenty-
two Vādanbhēda-s of Rāgavibōdha, referring to them as Gamaka varieties and also without mentioning the
source. This is followed by an account of the Gamaka-s (4:15-17) among which we come across many names
from Saṅgītapārijāta. Thus, it could be presumed that this list could represent the gamaka-s that the original text
of Saṅgītapārijāta described.
Ēkasphālana Śarīra-huṃkṛta Cyavita Svarakarṣa Nēmna
Svarahata Hatāhata Hatōttarāhata Tiripa Dvirāhata
Ḍhālu Anāhata or Śānta Mudrā or Huṃphita Svasthāna Grahasthāna

In the above list from Saṅgītapārijāta there are a few names like 'Tiripa' mentioned as a Gamaka and
'Ḍhālu', as a Sthāya in Saṅgītaratnākara. Some names are common to the list in Rāgavibōdha. With regard to
details of the svarūpa of each gamaka, one has to rely only on the text of Saṅgītasāra, as the text portion in
Saṅgītapārijāta on this subject, is corrupt.

Identification of the positions of Svara-s on a Vīṇā:

Works of Ahōbala, Śrīnivāsa and Hṛdayanārāyaṇa are the early ones to define the svaras in terms of the
speaking length of a plucked string. For instance, when a string sounding Madhyasthāna-ṣaḍja is stopped at the
midpoint, the emerging sound is Tārasthāna-Ṣaḍja. When it is stopped at the mid-point between Madhyasthāna-
ṣaḍja and Tārasthāna-ṣaḍja, the resulting sound is Madhyasthāna-madhyama.
In a similar fashion the author indicates the measure of the speaking length of string for the remaining
śuddhasvara-s and vikṛtasvara-s. In this connection we find the text of Saṅgītapārijāta to be faulty and corrupt.
For instance, while presenting the positions of Śuddhasvara-s, the text of Saṅgītapārijāta (1897:35:315-318)
reads –
स्वरस्य हेतुभूताया वीणायाश्चाक्षुषत्वतः ।
तत्र स्वरविबोधार्थं स्थानलक्षणमुच्यते ।।
ध्वन्यवच्छिन्नवीणायां मध्ये तारकसंस्थितः ।
उभयोः षड्जयोर्मध्ये मध्यमं स्वरमाचरेत् ।।
त्रिभागात्मकवाणायां पञ्चमः स्यातदग्रिमे ।
षड्जपञ्चमयोर्मध्ये गान्धारस्य स्थितिर्भवेत् ।।
स-पयोः पूर्वभागे च स्थापनीयोऽथ रि-स्वरः ।
स-पयोर्मध्यदेशे तु धैवतं स्वरमाचरेत् ।।
तत्रांशद्वयसंत्यागान्निषादस्य स्थितिर्भवेत् ।
The corresponding verses in Rāgatattvavibōdha (1918:5:35-40) read –
स्वरस्य हेतुभूताया वीणायाश्चाक्षुषत्वतः ।
तत्र स्वरविबोधार्थं स्थानलक्षणमुच्यते ।।
पूर्वांत्ययोश्च मेर्वोश्च मध्ये तारकसः स्थितः ।
तदर्धेत्वातितारस्य सस्वरस्य स्थितिर्भवेत् ।।
मध्यस्थानादिमषड्जमारभ्यातारषड्जगम् ।
सूत्रं कु र्यात्तदर्धे तु स्वरं मध्यममाचरेत् ।।
भागत्रयसमायुक्तं तत्सूत्रं कारितं भवेत् ।
पूर्वभागद्वयादग्रे स्थापनीयोऽथ पंचमः ।।
षड्जपंचममध्ये तु गान्धारस्थानमाचरेत् ।।
षड्जपञ्चमगं सूत्रमंशत्रयसमन्वितम् ।
तत्रांशद्वयसंत्यागात् पूर्वभागे तु रिर्भवेत् ।।
 9

पञ्चमोत्तरषड्जाख्यमध्ये धैवतमाचरेत् ।
पसयोर्मध्यभागे स्यात् भागत्रयसमन्विते ।
पूर्वभागद्वयं त्यक्त्वा निषादो राजते स्वरः ।।
A study of the verses from the two texts will make it clear that –
a) Rāgatattvabibōdha (RTV) alone points out the position for Ati-tāra-ṣaḍja
b) Saṅgītapārijāta (SPar) is imprecise in specifying the position for Ṛṣabha.
c) In the description of position for Dhaivata, the reading in SPar is erroneous.
d) Saṅgītapārijāta's definition for the position of Niṣāda is incomplete.
Thus it again becomes clear that a great deal of editing work awaits us before we can say with some
confidence what the two texts say about the music of their times.
Defining a svarasthāna (incidentally, a term that seems to occur for the first time in the textual tradition, and
in particular, in the work of Ahōbala), in terms of the speaking length of a string is a method that the discipline
of Acoustics has developed for the physical entity 'Sound', and is totally new to the tradition of Indian musical
thought. It is inexplicable how Ahōbala arrived at this. Two prominent contemporaries of his, namely,
Sōmanātha and Vēṅkaṭamakhī do not use this method. However we do come across in texts starting from
Svaramēlakalānidhi of Rāmāmātya, an added definition of a svarasthāna based on its location on the fret of a
Vīṇā. The positioning of the frets is based on Saṃvādī (consonance), a feature which again cannot be traced to
earlier works.
Hence it is strange that Ahōbala adopted a method totally different from that prevailing in the earlier and
contemporary textual tradition. The composition of Saṅgītapārijāta is dated to 17 th century by which time the
regions of India had started witnessing occupation by foreigners other than the Mughals. The French, Portugese,
Dutch and the British had definitely established themselves here. One could conjecture that Ahōbala might have
come to learn this method from some literary source or scholar from those countries. However the propounding
of this theory in Physics is attributed to a French mathematician and music theorist Marin Mersenne (1637) and
the date of his work is 1637. It is also a bit difficult to imagine if this book or information had reached India by
the time Ahōbala wrote his book and further influenced his thinking. We must also bear in mind the fact that
two other contemporary authors, namely, Śrīnivāsa and Hṛdayanārāyaṇa Dēva have also used this method
without mentioning one another. It is also possible that the calculation of frequency on the basis of speaking
length of a vibrating string existed in earlier centuries too.
There is also this question whether defining the value of Tāra-sa as '2', Pañcama sa '3/2', Madhyama as '4/3'
and so on is a necessary measure for the music of India. What is being defined here is only a svarasthāna, a tonal
reference for classifying a svara. Svara is not just a pitch position but also a tonal range, and even ṣaḍja as a
svara has a movement and its pitch in the melody could vary slightly according to context. A svara has to be
known through aural learning and cannot be reconstructed based on the knowledge of a svarasthāna.
One interesting point we observe is that the pitch of śuddha-ṛṣabha is fixed as '9/8'. In present day
Karṇāṭaka music '9/8' defines 'catuḥśruti-ṛṣabha'. On the other hand, in Svaramēlakalānidhi the śuddha-ṛṣabha as
located on the Vīṇā, can be approximately equated to 16/15. Based on these, scholars point out differences in the
intervals for the same scale, between the two texts. It is however not certain if the tonality of the svara-s in the
music really reflected these svarasthāna-based reconstructions.

Mēla:
The subject of Mēla-s is taken up next. Mēla is defined thus -
मेलः सवरसमूहः स्याद्रागवयञ्जनशक्तिमान् । (1897:36:330ab)
Translation: "Mēla is a collection of svara-s having potential to manifest the rāga."
This appears a bit exaggerated since a mēla is merely a collection of seven svarasthāna-s under which rāga-
s with svara-s affiliated to those svarasthāna-s are classified. It cannot possess any other character of a rāga.
Ahōbala's mēla-s are linked to the mūrchanā varieties discussed earlier (1897:10-17).
अथ शुद्धैः स्वरैर्मेलाः कथ्यन्ते विकृ तैरपि । (36:329ab)
Mēla-s are said to be formed on the basis of śuddhasvara-s and vikṛtasvara-s.
 10

आद्याद्यमूर्छनाभिश्च मेला ज्ञेया विचक्षणैः । (36:331)

Here, Ahōbala is alluding to the earlier mūrchanā-s which represented possible śuddha / vikṛta
combinations of the seven svara-s and each mūrchanā would commence on Sa and on the successive svara-s in
descending order; ni or dha or pa etc. However a Mēla would represent only the first mūrchanā in each group,
namely, the one starting on Sa.
One fundamental difference between a mūrchanā and a mēla has to be understood. At the point in time,
namely, 13th to 18th century, there was a tradition of the basic scale of a rāga not having 'Sa' as the tonic or the
fundamental (Ramanathan 1997). All the same, nēla-s were conceived only with 'Sa' as the first svarasthāna.
The total number of possible mēla-s is mentioned thus.
तेषां मितिः ख-वेदौ च वह्निश्चन्द्रद्वयं तथा ।।
The number is 11340 (kha=0, vēdau=4 4, vahni = 3, candra dvayam = 11). The mēla-s mentioned here
could perhaps be only those mūrchanā-s starting with Sa, as mentioned earlier.
The author also speaks of mēla-s of six svara-s and five svara-s and he and perhaps Śrīnivāsa are the only
scholars of Mēla period to mention these. Although Six-svara mēla-s and Five-svara mēla-s may sound non-
traditional and strange, it is logically sound. Generally it has been a practice to mention only seven-svara mēla-s
for classifying under them, rāga-s having 7, 6 or even 5 svara-s. This has always caused confusion or disputes
when auḍuva rāga-s like Mōhana are classified. Logically it would be wiser to form 6 svara and 5 svara mēla-s
to classify ṣāḍava and aūḍuva rāga-s respectively.
However while classifying rāga-s, Ahōbala does not mention 6 or 5 svara mēla-s.
Ahōbala does not list any names of mēla-s. In the course of describing the characteristics of various rāga-s
Ahōbala normally does not mention any parent mēla name. In some cases though, name of a rāga (mēla) is
mentioned as the parent. For instance,
sālaṅganāṭa - śaṅkarābharaṇōtpanna
ābhīrīnāṭa – ābhīrī-mēla samudhbhūtō
Thus from the description of rāga-s we can count about 12 mēla names. From the description of the svara-s
constituting of the rāga-s, the following list could be prepared.
Mēla-s & Rāga-s
No. Mēla Rāga-s
1 Śuddha-mēla Saindhava Dhanāśrī Nīlāmbarī Mālavaśrī
Māru Manōhara Tailaṅga
2 Gauri Mallāri Lalitā Bahulā Kaumārī
Rēvā Maulā Mālavagaula Asāvarī
Pahāḍī Maṅgalakauśaka Pūrvī Nādarāmakriyā
Trivaņī Surālaya Arjuna Śarvarī
3 Mukhārī Śivavallabhā
4 Bhairavi Simharava
5 Ābhīrī Ḍhakkā Ābhīrināṭa
6 Sāraṅga Sāraṅgagaula
7 Mālava Dīpaka Paṭhamañjarī Dakṣipā
Auttaragurjarī
8 Śaṅkarābharaņa Baḍahamsa Sālaṅkanāṭa Chāyānaṭa
Kaṅkaņa Śaṅkarānanda
9 Vēlāvalī Naṭanārāyaņa
10 Nāṭya Kumuda Cakradhara
11 Śrīrāga Sōraṭhī
12 Kalyāņa Kalyāņavarāṭī Kalyāņanāṭa Kōkila
Airāvata Rājadhānī

Raga:
 11

In the course of the delineation of rāga-s the author first classifies rāga-s according to the time of their
performance.
Early morning - Dhanāśrī, Mālavaśrī, and others.
First part of the day - Gurjari, Rēvagupti and others.
Second part of the day - Dīpaka, Kāmbōdi and others.
Third part of the day - Ghaṇṭārāga, Ḍhakka and others.
All parts of the day - Saindhava, Mēgha, etc.
After this classification the rāga-s are taken up individually and their characteristics described. The
characteristics relate to the Aṃśa svara, Graha svara, Nyāsa svara, Varja svara, passages of svara-s
exemplifying the melodic movement, the time of the day appropriate for the raga.
The most significant characteristic seems to be the 'Udgrāha' which seems to be the opening statement in
the illustrative svara passage. This statement is suggestive of the Ārōha and Avarōha that in the later texts like
Saṅgrahcūḍāmaṇī and Saṅgītasamparadāyapradarśinī became an important lakṣaṇa. e.g., Bhairavī – sa ri ga ma
pa dha ni sa ni dha pa ma ga ri sa (Ahōbala 1897:42)
At the end the author states that in all 122 rāga-s have been described, as numbered in the work.
Kshirasagara (1973:35-38) has given a detailed account of the rāga-s described in Saṅgītapārijāta and
Rāgatattvavibōdha, since most of them are identical. A reproduction of the original verses from Saṅgītapārijāt
and Rāgatattvavibōdha with translation and comments can be had in the book Rāgalakṣaṇasaṅgraha by Hema
Ramanathan (2004)

Prabandha:
Description of the Prabandha-s follows the delineation of rāga-s. First an account of the Dhātu-s and the
Aṅga-s and classification of Prabandha-s is given. The Prabandha-s are then individually described. After the
prabandha-s of Sūḍa, Āli and Viprakīrṇa variety, some extra forms are taken up.
These are: Cindu, Daru, Aṣṭapadī and Dhruvapadam.
Cindu is mainly characterised by the Tamiz language (Drāviḍa-bhāṣā) in which the songs are set (cf.
Dāmōdara 1952:222:7,240). Daru is characterised by Telugu language (tailaṅga-bhāṣā). Dhruvapadam is set in
languages from the Northern part of the country, and perhaps denotes the well know Dhrupada.

Finally in the Rāga-gīta-vicāra-kāṇḍa, the characteristics of a Vāggēyakāra and the Guṇa-Dōṣa of a singer
are delineated.

2. Vādya-tāla Kāṇḍa
There are two parts in this chapter, the first one dealing with Vādya and the second with Tāla.
A) Vādya:
First the vādya-s are classified under the usual four groups.
Tata, Ānaddha (Avanaddha), Suṣira and Ghana.
(i) The Tata vādya:
a. Rudra Vīṇā b. Brahma Vīṇā c. Taumburam d. Svaramaṇḍalam
e. Pinākī f. Kinnarī g. Daṇḍī h. Rāvaṇakara (Rāvaṇahasta)
Among the instruments described, Taumburam is of interest of to us. There are two types –
Nibaddha-Taumburam and Anibaddha-Taumburam.
Although the name 'Taumburam' resembles the name of the well known instrument 'Tambūrā' ('Tānpurā' in
the Hindustani music), it is not certain if the two Taumburam-s have anything in common with the latter. In the
Saṅgītapārijāta (1897:80-84) the description of the Taumburam follows that of the Rudra-vīṇā and of the
Brahma-vīṇā. Construction-wise the Nibaddha-taumburam is almost similar to the two earlier vīṇā-s. Instead of
the frets <sārikā>, a string is wound around the various svarasthāna positions. While Rudravīṇā has four main
strings for playing melodies and three for 'Śruti', Brahma seems to have five and no mention is made of 'Śruti'
strings, unless of course they have to be presumed. Nibaddha Taumburam has four main playing strings, again
 12

with no specific mention of the side strings. An Anibaddha-taumburam may have 7, 5 or 4 playing strings with
no strings wound on the stem, at the Svarasthāna positions. Ahōbala does not provide any more information.
Saṅgītasāra of Pratāpa Singh (1910:2-7) which normally paraphrases the information contained in
Saṅgītapārijāta, mentions that 'Nibaddha-taumburam' is popularly called by the name 'Sitāra'. And in the context
of Anibaddha-tauburam, it adds that the instrument provides support for svara-s while singing.
In the case of Saṅgitapārijāta, the mention of the absence of 'stinged fretting' could suggest that the
Anibaddha-aumburam was used to play melodies in the manner of today's Gōṭṭuvādyam.

Svaramaṇḍalam is equated to 'Mattakōkilā' by the author. Kallinātha (1986:343) while commenting on

Sārṅgadēva's mention of Mattakōkila, had equated it to Svaramaṇḍala.

ii. Ānadda vādya:

The instruments mentioned in this class are -
a. Mṛdaṅga b. Dundubhi c. Bhērī
d. B[R]uñjā (Pratāpa Siṅgha 1910:2:73) e. Ḍamarū
f. Paṭaha g. Cakravādyam h. Huḍukkā
After describing these, the author takes up instruments which possess characteristics of both Ānaddha and
Tata, e.g., Ḍhakka and Ravāva.

iii. Suṣiravādya:
The Suṣiravādyas described are:
a. Sunādi b. Muralī c. Pāvā d. Śṛṅga e. Nāgasara
f. Kāhalī g. Mukhavīṇā h. Vakrī i. Tuṇḍakini j. Caṅgu
k. Śaṅkha l. Patrikā
Caṅgu mentioned here is same as the Mōrsiṅga (Mōrcaṅga in Rajasthan) of today and has the first textual
mention in this work. This has a counterpart in the West known as the Jew's Harp. Although a metallic
instrument with a vibrating metal reed, it has been classified as Suṣira vādya, probably because of using the
mouth as a resonator.

iv. Ghanavādya:
The Ghanavādyas described are:
a. Tāla b. Jhallarī c. Ghaṇṭā d. Jayaghaṇṭā e. Ghaṭa
f. Jalayantram g. Kṣudraghaṇṭā h. Kalpataru i. Kāṣṭatāla
Jalayantram seems to be same as the Jalataraṅgam of today and this would be the earliest reference to this
instrument. Although a melodic instrument, perhaps because of the dense nature of the vibrating vessel, it seems
to have been classified as a Ghana-vādya.

A Hindi paraphrase of all the instruments described by Ahōbala, with some elaboration, can be had in
Saṅgītasāra (Pratāpa Siṅgha 1910 Chapter-2; Tata 1-9; Ānaddha 47-78; Ghana 78-83; Suṣira 109-114), although
there is no acknowledgement made to Ahōbala or his work, in this context.

B) Tāla:
First the author describes the ten vital aspects of Tāla collectively called the Tāla-daśa-prāṇa. These are:
a. Kāla b. Mārga c. Kriyā d. Aṅga e. Graha
f. Jāti g. Kalā h. Laya i. Yati j. Prastāra
While most of the Prāṇa-s conform to the standard definitions seen in other texts, Jāti is slightly different.
Ahōbala speaks of eight varieties of Jāti, instead of the usual five and the eight are -
Ēkākī Pakṣiṇī Tryaśra Catasra Khaṇḍa Vṛttu [Ṛtu] Miśra Saṅkīrṇa
and they denote respectively, the time of values, one to eight varṇa-s, starting with one.
 13

It is surprising to find the verses from Saṅgiṭapārijāta describing the eight jāti-s, appearing in an early 18 th
century text Gītacandrōdaya of Narahari Cakaravarti (1982:112), who lived in the Bengal region! And in this
work the jāti with 6 varṇa-s is 'Ṛtu', which numerically, is the appropriate name.

While describing the Tāla-s, first those of the Mārga class are taken up. These are :
(i) Caccatpuṭa (ii) Cācapuṭa (iii) Saṭpitāputraka (iv) Sampakvēsṭāka (v) Udghaṭṭa
One unusual feature is the prescription of 'pāṭakṣara' or drumming syllables for these tāla-s. The tradition of
furnishing pāṭākṣara for tāla can be met with in texts like Saṅgītōpaniṣatsārōddhāra of Sudhākalaśa (1961:23-
53:2,39-98), dated 1350 CE., but in that work these are mentioned only for Dēśītāla-s. In Saṅgītapārijāta we
have the pātākṣara for even mārga tāla-s like Caccatpuṭa, Cācapuṭa and others, illustrated in Ēkakala, Dvikala,
Catuṣkala and Aṣṭakala forms. A sample is presented below.
ध्रवादिभिः क्रियाभिश्च ताला एते युताः ।
तत्तन्मार्गानुसारेण कलायुक्ता भवंति हि ।।
समवर्णोद्भवा जातिर्मार्गतालेषु संमता ।
अथ पाटाश्च कथ्यंते मार्गतालानुसारिणः ।।
उक्तवर्णक्रमेणैव नृत्यगीतानुसारिणः । अथ उदाहरणम् –
तक किणाक् कु जग भुङ्ग णाङ् झें, सरिकु ।। टकु किडि किडि । ढिं ढिं ।। तथदिदिनन थां ।।
इति ध्रुवमार्गे चंचत्पुटः ।। Ahōbala (1897:109)

The Dēśī-tāla-s are taken up next. A large number of tāla-s are listed. Initially for many tāla-s the
Pāṭāṣaksara-s are also furnished but for the rest, only the structures are found.
And as mentioned earlier in the context of Alaṅkāra-s of the second category, the 'Sūḍādi' tāla-s, namely,
Dhruva, Maṇṭha, Rūpaka, Jhampa, Tripuṭa, Aṭa and Ēkatāla, are described towards the end. Incidentally the
Dhruva and Maṇṭha are described elaborately covering all the varieties that were part of the Sālagasūḍa
prabandha. Incidentally, the form of Ēkatāla, which in the context of Sālagasūḍa was constituted of just one
Druta (Śāraṅgadēva 1986:189:291ab), in Sūlādi, was replaced by Āditāla made up of one Laghu, as mentioned
by Vēṅkaṭamakhī (2002:176:3,108-110). Strangely, Ahōbala continues to mention Ēkatālī, but with a structure
having a Laghu! But that is how it is today in the South Indian music.

Conclusion:
That a translation in Persian language was written in the beginning of the 18th cent (1724 A.D) indicates
the importance that Saṅgītapārijāta commanded. But with no information available regarding the date and place
of composition of the work and about the Author, modern scholars have been finding it difficult while trying to
place it in a historical context.
a) While Saṅgītapārijāta and Rāgatattvavibōdha have in common quite a few verses and Hṛdayaprakāśa too
has some, there can be no certainty in arranging them in a chronological order.
b) Ahōbala seems to have been well informed about the musicological thoughts that were prevalent in the
various parts of the country, both in the South and in the North-west. The features of computing mūrchanā-s
based on śuddha-vikṛta svara-s and additional Alaṅkara-s are seen in other texs too.
Ahōbala seems to be the first author to use the term 'Svarasthāna', to denote the pitch positions of the
various śuddha and vikṛta svara-s on the stem of the vīṇā.
Ahōbala is as much familiar with the northern Dhrupada as he seems to be with Cindu and Daru of the
South.
While the Alaṅkāra-s based on Sūḍādi tāla-s found in Saṅgītapārijāta is met with in the
Caturdaṇḍīprakāśikā, the nomenclature Indranīla, Mahāvajra etc. seems new.
c) Bhātkhaṇḍē (1941:31,) based on the fixing of the pitches of śuddha and vikṛta svara-s on the basis of the
speaking lengths of the Vīṇā string, concludes that the śuddha scale of Ahōbala (and of Hṛdayanārāyaṇa
and Śrīnivāsa) corresponded to the modern Kafi scale. However it is not certain if the tonality of the music
 14

really reflected the positions reflected by the Vīṇā string length. The attempts in the South that tried to
correlate the intervals depicted through the fretting on the śuddha/Madhya-mēla vīṇā tuning made the
situation really chaotic.
d) The furnishing of illustrative svara passages while describing rāga-s by Ahōbala and Śrīnivāsa is extremely
valuable and such contributions are certainly available in the works of Sōmanātha and Śāhaji
(Rāgalakṣaṇamu) too. But the notion of 'Udgrāha' svara passages (almost similar to ārōha-avarōha) is met
with for the first time in the works of the earlier two.
e) Introducing instruments like Taumburam, Jalayantram and Caṅgu is again an important contribution of
Saṅgītapārijāta.

Normally the authors of lakṣaṇagrantha-s are conservative and take time to recognise and acknowledge
contemporary developments and changes. Ahōbala certainly requires our admiration.
Saṅgitaratnākara of Śārṅgadēva is often referred to as watershed in the history of musical thought. Texts
succeeding that are broadly seen from two perspectives, namely, those that adopt the śuddha-vikṛta svara-s, the
mēla-rāga classification, and the Tāla-daśa-prāṇa and those that do not. Saṅgītadapaṇa and a host of texts from
the Eastern region, namely, Saṅgītadāmōdara, and Saṅgītanārāyaṇa do not exhibit preference for mēla-rāga
classification or the Tāla-daśa-prāṇa. Saṅgītasūryōdaya ignores mēla, for that matter the subject of raga itself,
but speaks of tāla-daā-prāṇa. Those texts that subscribe to Mēla (Thāṭa) again have their own affiliations.
Svaramēlakalānidhi, Saṅgītasudhā, Caturdaṇḍīprakāśikā, Rāgatālacintāmaṇī and Saṅgītasārāmṛta seem to
fall into one group, notwithstanding the ideological differences their authors displayed.
Saṅgītapārijāta becomes a member of a much larger alliance that includes, the four works of Paṇḍarīka
Viṭṭhala, Rāgavibōdha, Rasakaumudī, Rāgatattvavibōdha, the two works of Hṛdayanārāyaṇa, Rāgataraṅgiṇī, the
three works of Bhāvabhaṭṭa and Saṅgītasāra (of Pratāpa Siṅgha).
But it is a pity that whatever has been written in the name of and in praise of Saṅgītapārijāta is based on a
text that is quite corrupt, rid with gaps and badly organized and one hopes a good edited text, incorporating also
the third and final Nṛtya-kāṇḍa, will make its appearance soon.
References
Ahōbala 1884 Ahōbala, Saṅgītapārijāta, ed. & pub. by Jībānanda Vidyāsāgara, Saraswati Press,
Kalkatta, 1884.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2722
Ahōbala 1897 Ahōbala, Saṅgītapārijāta, pub. by R S Gondhalekara, Pune. 1897.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/823
Bhātkhaṇḍe VN A Short Historical Survey of the Music of Upper India, Bombay 1934.
1934
Bhātkhaṇḍe VN A Comparative Study of Some of the Leading Music Systems of the 15th, 16th,
1941 17th, & 18th Centuries, Indian Musicological Society, Bombay, 1941
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/418
Bhāvabhaṭta 1919 Bhāvabhaṭta, Anūpa-saṅgītāṅkuśa, ed. Dattātrēya Kēśava Jōśī, pub. BS
Sukhathaṇakara, Mumbai 1919.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2719
Bhāvabhaṭta 1919a Bhāvabhaṭta, Anūpa-saṅgītaratnākara, ed. Dattātrēya Kēśava Jōśī, pub. BS
Sukhathaṇakara, Mumbai 1919.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2720
Bhāvabhaṭta 1921 Bhāvabhaṭta, Anūpa-saṅgītavilāsa, ed. Dattātrēya Kēśava Jōśī, pub. BS
Sukhathaṇakara, Mumbai 1921.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2721
Chaitanya P Desai, Chaitanya P Desai, Saṅgīta Viṣayaka Saṃskṛta Grantha, Suvichar Prakashan
1979 Mandal, Nagpur, 1979
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2747.
Dāmōdara 1952 Dāmōdara Paṇḍita, Saṅgītadarpaṇa, ed. by K Vasudeva Sastri, pub. in Tanjore Sarasvati
Mahal Library series, Tanjavur, 1952.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/1764
Dēva, B.C, 1981 Music of India: A Scientific Study, Mushiram Manoharlal Publishers. Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi. 1981.
Deval K B, 1910 The Hindu Musical Scale and the Twenty-two Shrutees, Poona, 1910.
 15

http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/425
Hema Ramanathan Hema Ramanathan, Rāgalakṣaṇasaṅgraha: Collection of Rāga Descriptions from
2004 Treatises on Music of the Mēla Period with translation and notes, pub.
N.Ramanathan, Chennai, 2004.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2232
Hṛdayanārāyaṇa Dēva Hṛdayanārāyaṇa Dēva, Hṛdayakautuka, ed. D.K. Joshi, pub. B. S. Sukthankar,
1918 Bombay, 1918.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/789
Hṛdayanārāyaṇa Dēva Hṛdayanārāyaṇa Dēva, Hṛdayaprakāśa, ed. D.K. Joshi, pub. B. S. Sukthankar,
1918 Bombay, 1918.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/790
Kṛṣṇamācāryā, Paṇḍita Kṛṣṇamācārya, Saṅgītapārijātam, Tamiz translation, Sudēśamittiran Weekly
1951 Edition, 1951. http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/1915
Kshirsagar D B Kshirsagar DB, A Comparative Study of the Rāgatattvavibōdha of Śrīnivāsa and
1973 the Saṅgītapārijāta of Ahōbala, Journal of the Music Academy, Madras, 1973 to
1976.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2750
Mersenne, Marin 1637 Mersenne, Marin, Traité de l'harmonie universelle, 1637.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne%27s_laws
Narahari Cakravarti Narahari Cakravarti, Vaiṣṇava-saṅgīta-śāstra [the treatise includes
1982 Rāgaratnākara, Gītacandrōdaya (Tālārṇava) and music portion of śrī
śrībhaktiratnākara, chapter fifth.], ed. Guru Bipin Singh; Translator –Gajānana
Rnāḍē Śāstrī, Madanlal Vyāsa. Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, 1982.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2727
Nijenhuis, E te Nijenhuis E te, Musicological Literature, History of Indian Literature series,
1977 edited by J. Gonda, vol. VI, fasc.1, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, The Netherlands,
1977
Pratāpa Siṅgha 1912 Mahārāja Savai Pratāpa Siṅgha Dēva, Savāi, Saṅgītasāra, pub.
B.T.Sahasrabuddhe for The Poona Gayan Samaja, Poona. Part 1-7, 1912. Pt.I, II,
III, IV & V-1910, Pt.VI & VII – 1912
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2717
Premalatha V Premalata V, A Study of Manuscripts on Music and a Critical Edition and
2001 Translation of the Unpublished Work of Sōmanārya, dissertation awarded Ph.D.
degree, University of Madras, 2001.
Raghavan Raghavan V, Some Names in Later Sangita Literature', Sangeet Natak Akademi,
1960-61 Bulletin no.s 17 (pp.1-24) &18 (pp.1-18), 1960-61, New Delhi.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/465
Ramanathan N Interpreting the ‘Graham’ part of the Svara passages in the Kīrtana-s of
2017 Muttusvāmi Dīkṣitar, 1997
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2333
Śārṅgadēva Śārṅgadēva, 'Saṅgītaratnākara', with the commentaries of
Kallinātha Kallinātha, 'Kalānidhi' and Simhabhūpāla, 'Sudhākara', ed. by Paṇḍita S.
Simhabhūpāla Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī, pub. in the Adyar Library Series by Adyar Library, Madras
1992, 1959, 1986, 1953 –
vol.I 1943; revised by S.Śāradā, 1992;
vol.II 1944, revised by Pandit V. Krishnamacharya, 1959, 1976;
vol.III 1951, revised by S.Sarada, 1986.
vol.IV 1953.
Sōmanātha Sōmanātha, Rāgavibōdha, along with author’s own commentary Viveka, ed. by
1945 Pandit S. Subrahmanya Sastri, Pub. in the Adyar Library Series by Adyar
Library, Madras, 1945.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/813
Śrīnivāsa 1918 Śrīnivāsa, Rāgatattvavibōdha, ed. D.K. Joshi, pub. B. S. Sukthankar, Bombay,
1918.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/811
Śrīnivāsa 1956 Śrīnivāsa, Rāgatattvavibōdha, ed. by Vibhukumar S. Desai, pub. in Gaekwad's
Oriental Series by Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1956.
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/812
Vēṅkaṭamakhī Vēṅkaṭamakhī, Caturdaṇḍī-prakāśikā critically edited and translated with
2002, 2002a commentary and notes, vol.1 by R.Sathyanarayana, pub. by , Indira Gandhi
 16

National Centre For The Arts and Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi;.
Kalamulasastra Series no.24, 2002;