You are visitor number (per WebCounter) to our site! - please send us your feedback

Abhinavagupta's contribution to the solution of some problems in

Indian Musicology

Jaideva Singh

The Abhinava-bhâratî commentary on NâTya-zâstra by Abhinavagupta is not simply a gloss, giving interpretation of important words, but is full of discussions of important problems of musicology in which he makes brilliant suggestions that give a new orientation to certain concepts of music and lead to the solution of difficult problems.

If all his suggestions are collected, they would form a whole book in itself. In a short paper like this, it will not be possible to take up all the points that he has raised. I have selected only a few observations of his which, in my opinion, make a definite contribution to musicology.

1. Abhinava’s explanation of svara

Let us first of all take up his views on svara. On page 11 of the 4th volume of Nâtyazâstra, he discusses the views of some of his predecessors regarding svara or a musical note and concludes by saying: vayam tu zruti-sthânâbhighâta-prabhava-zabda-prabhâvito’nuraNanâtmâ snigdha-madhurah zabda eva svara iti vakSyâmah |

In this statement, he makes two points. Like Matanga, he suggests that there are two kinds of zruti, viz. svara-zruti and antar-zruti. It is only at the position of svara-zruti that sound explodes into svara, not at the intervening antar-zrutis. This is clearly stated in the following words: zruti-sthânâbhighâta-prabhava-zabda-prabhâvitah, i.e., "that which is prabhâvita, i.e., made, become, or transformed by zabda or sound which is produced (prabhava) by being struck at the position of its appropriate zruti (zruti-sthânabhighâta)."      

The second point that he makes is that when the sound is produced at its appropriate zruti it becomes anuraNanâtmâ snigdha-madhurah zabdah: “a resonant sweet sound affecting the ear agreeably.” And this is svara or a musical note.

Western musicologists have defined a musical note in terms of regular, definite number of vibrations per second, i.e., from the point of view of the physical aspect of sound. Abhinavagupta defines it from the aesthetic point of view, i.e., from the point of view of its effect upon the mind of the listener.        

There are two important words in his definition of svara, viz., anuraNanâtma and snigdha-madhurah.

anuraNana gives the physical aspect of the note, and snigdha-madhura gives the aesthetic aspect. anuraNana is not simply echo but sounding conformably to continuous tinkling echo. snigdha-madhurah is its agreeable sweet sensation in the listener. This definition of Abhinavagupta has been followed by all the later writers of music. Zarngadeva repeats these very words in his Samgita-ratnâkara. But this is not all. He has made a suggestion in this regard which never occurred to any musicologist.

The word svara is derived from two roots, viz., svR of bhvâdi-Gâna (zabdopatâpayoh, in the sense of zabda or sound and upatâpa or warmth of feeling) and svara of curâdi-gâNa (âkSepe in the sense of hinting, imposing). Abhinavagupta says that the word svara as used music has the implication of both of these senses. The reading, as it occurs in NâTyazâstra, is corrupt. After correction, it would stand thus: svR zabdopatâpayoh, svara âkSepa ity-anayoh svara zabdah, tena zabda-svabhâvâm vitta-vRtti-madhya-sthatâ-rûpa-svâsthyâvasthâ-parityâjanenopatâpayanto hRdyatâtizaya-vazât svatâm âkSipântah sva-viSaye abhidhânam kurvantah svarâ ity-uktâh |  (NS IV, pp. 10-11)

"The natural tendency of the mind is only towards plain sound. A musical note or svara has the power to obtrude itself on the mind, to set aside its natural tendency towards mere sound, and by its excess of pleasantness makes the mind susceptible to emotion, and thus imposing itself on it makes its presence felt." This is not a literary tour de force on the part of Abhinavagupta. He has drawn our attention to a patent psychic state aroused by a musical note, and in this consists his originality.

2.      The principle of niSkâsa or elimination in the scheme of the zrutis

On page 14 of N.S., he has drawn our attention to the principle of niSkâsa in the scheme of the zrutis. He uses the expression niSkâsa prakrama, a gradual, systematic elimination of one note in the zrutis for the delineation of svaras.

SaDja is of the four zrutis, RSabha is of three zrutis, gândhâra is of two zrutis. Madhyama occupies the central position and divides the saptaka or heptad into two equal parts. The other three notes, viz., pañcama, dhaivata and niSâda have the same number of zrutis, viz., 4,3,2 with a gradual elimination of one zruti in each case.

In this connection, he has drawn our attention also to the fact that, truly speaking, there are only three notes. As he puts it, tena paramârthatah trayah svarâh (N.S. IV, p.14) The ”svaras are really three, viz., sa, re, ga; pa, dha, ni are the same ”svaras at a higher level of utterance. The difference is only due to ûrdhva sparza and mandra sparza.

3. Correspondence of the Vedic and Laukika svaras

          Owing to a misinterpretation of the zikSâ granthas, many musicologists thought that SaDja, madhyama, and pañcama correspond to svarita of the Vedic note, gândhâra and RSabha to udâtta, and niSâda and dhaivata to anudâtta. But the rationale given by Abhinavagupta sets these theories to naught. He says, catuh-zrutir udâttah ucchatvât, dvi-zrutir anudâttah nîcaistvât | tri-zrutih svaritah madhya-vartitatayâ samâhâratvât | (N.S. IV, p. 14).

 “Udâtta means the highest; therefore those svaras which have four zrutis, i.e., sa, ma, and pa, are udâtta. Anudâtta means lowest; therefore those ”svaras which have the lowest number of zrutis, i.e., which have only two zrutis, viz., ga and ni, are ”anudâtta. Svarita svaras are so called because of samâhâra. samâhâra in this context means conjunction or meeting point. Therefore, svarita svaras are those which lie in between (madhya-vartina) the udâtta of four zrutis and the anudâtta of two zrutis, i.e., svaras of three zrutis, viz., re and dha.

4. The indispensability of madhyama note

Both Vedic and Gândharva music maintain that the note, madhyama, is avinâzi, i.e., it cannot be omitted in any scale, or in pentatonic or hexatonic forms. Neither the Vedas nor Bharata has advanced any reason for this position of madhyama.

Abhinavagupta clarifies this point at two places. On page 14 of N.S. IV, he says:  tena paramârthatah traya eva svarâh – sa-ri-gâh, pa-dha-nayah | madhyamas tu dhruvaka-sthânîyo madhyatvâd eva. He says, "Because madhyama occupies a pivotal position, lying as it does at the very center of the saptaka or heptad, it is dhruva or fixed, constant, immovable. It should be borne in mind that the concept of a scale in Indian music is that of saptaka or heptad, not of an aSTaka or octave. A saptaka consists of only seven svaras. Madhyama occupies the central position and divides the other notes of the saptaka into two equal halves which has already been indicated above. It is the pivot. A pivot is that on which something hinges or depends. But this much alone is not enough to explain the indispensability of madhyama. There is a far deeper reason which involves the philosophy of madhya or madhyama. Abhinavagupta hints this in his preliminary verse in Part IV of NâTya-zâstra. Unfortunately the reading of this verse as printed in the text is very corrupt. With a little correction, it would stand thus:

madhyama-svara uzanti yad-vazân-nâda-SaT-kumuditam zruti-kramât |

so’pi yad-vilasitah kalâtmakah tam namâmi zizirâmzu-maNDanam ||

"The gods are fond of the madhyama note through the  power of which arises the group of six notes in accordance with the arrangement of zrutis. I bow to him (i.e., Ziva) who is adorned with the moon, who has kalâ as one of his tattvas and through whom even madhyama gleams [as the central note]."

In Shaiva philosophy, central reality is said to be madhya. As Pratyabhijñâ-hRdayam puts it, sarvântara?matvena vartamânatvât tad-bhitti-lagnatâm vinâ na kasyacid api svarûpânupapatteh samvid eva bhagavatî madhyam: "The exalted samvit or universal consciousness itself is the center inasmuch as it is present as the innermost reality of all and inasmuch as the form or nature of anything whatsoever cannot be possible without its being attached to it as the ground or support."

Just as central reality or universal consciousness is the ground or support of everything, even so the note madhyama which is the pivotal point is the ground or support of the entire heptad. Just as it is the madhya or central reality from which arises everything in the universe, even so it is the madhyama note from which arise all the other notes of the heptad (uzanti yad-vazân-nâda-SaT-kumuditam zruti-kramât). Gândharva which was mostly ritualistic music could not, therefore, drop madhyama in any case.

5. The exposition of kutapa

Bharata calls the orchestral stage music kutapa. kutapa ordinarily means ‘noonday heat’. Bharata does not give any explanation of the use of the word kutapa. It is Abhinavagupta who sheds light on it. Says he: ku rangam tapati ujjvalayati  (N.S. IV, p.2); i.e., kutapa is that which highlights the stage. It is the orchestral stage music which makes it glow and attracts the attention of the spectators.

6. The distinction between Gândharva and gâna or dezî-râgas

Some of our best musicologists think that Gândharva music was the only classical music of our country, that the scales, viz., SaDja-grâma and madhyama-grâma adopted by it according to certain fixed division of zrutis were the only standard scales of our music and that they changed suddenly under the influence of Iranian music with the advent of Muslims in India. Abhinavagupta has shown all along in NâTya-Zâstra that Gândharva and Gâna flourished side by side and that there was a clear cut distinction between the two.

The words gândharva and gâna have been used in two senses in our musical literature, in a sâmânya (or general) sense, and in vizeSa (or technical) sense. In a general sense, music as such was known as gândharva or gândharva zâstra; in a technical sense, only that was known as gândharva which has been described by Bharata in NâTya-Zâstra or by Dattila in Dattilam. So also the word gâna was used in two senses by Bharata himself in NâTya-Zâstra. In the general sense, he has used the word gâna in the sense of any song; in the technical sense, he has used the word

gâna in connection with dhruvas, in the sense of grâma râgas, bhâSâ, vibhâSâ, etc., in the sense of dezî-râgas.

Many musicologists seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Gândharva music was the only classical music of our country, that dezî music did not exist during the time of Bharata, that when it became classicized, it adopted exactly the scale and zrutis pattern of Bharata and that later it abandoned the original scale and zruti pattern under the influence of Iranian music with the advent of the Muslims.

No musicologist has given a knock-out to this peculiar delusion in such clear and unambiguous terms as Abhinavagupta. Throughout his commentary on NâTya-Zâstra, he has shown that Gândharva and Gâna or Dezî music flourished side by side, and that the aim of Dezî music was different from that of Gândharva. He has drawn a clear-cut and detailed distinction between Gândharva and Gâna music in his commentary on the 33rd chapter of NâTya-Zâstra. Says he on p.394 of chapter 33: gândharvasya kim lakSaNam? uktam adhyâya-catuSTayeSu muninâ | tathâpy anusandhâna-vandhyam mahâ-bhâgam bodhayitum anusandhîyate | svara-tâla-pada-vizeSâtmakam pravRtti-nivRtti-pradhâna-dRSTâdRSTa-phala-sâma-veda-prabhavam anâdi-kâla-vRttim anyonyoparañjanâ-guNatâ-vihînam gândharvam iti svarûpa-phalât kâlâd dharmâc ca bhidyamânam avazyam gâna-vailaKSaNyam bhedaika-sampâdanam |  

“Bharata in the first four chapters of geyâdhikara has already given the characteristics of gândharva. Still, it is being investigated here for the sake of those who are destitute of the spirit of investigation. There are four-fold distinctions between Gândharva and Gâna or Dezî music.

1.      They differ in svarûpa, i.e., formal structure; in other words, in svara, pada, and tâla.

2.      They differ in phala, i.e., regarding the end they serve and therefore in the resulting reward or phala.

3.      They differ in respect of kâla; i.e., in respect of the occasion on which they are to be used.

4.      They differ in respect of dharma; i.e., in respect of their distinct functions.

We shall take these up one by one.

(1) Difference in svarûpa or formal structure

Under this head come (a) svara, (b) tâla, and (c) pada.

(a) svara

Let us take up svara first. In Gândharva, the svaras or musical notes were employed at fixed intervals of zrutis, e.g., RSabha was on the third zruti above SaDja, gândhâra was on the second zruti above RSabha, etc., in SaDja-grâma. The zruti intervals were absolutely fixed. No change was permitted in these intervals. Abhinavagupta says that the rigidity of zruti intervals was not observed in Gâna or Dezî music, and he points to actual practice current in his time. He says: uktam api pratîtam anucitrîyate | pratîtanâm api alakSaNa-jñânânâm bâla-vijñâna-vad vedyam | "I am only elaborating what is pratîta, i.e., what is fairly recognized by musicologists. For those who do not know the lakSaNas, i.e., the science or theory of music, even facts known from direct experience can remain unrelated, just as facts are known to the child, but their scientific rationale is not known to him."

Abhinavagupta proceeds to give practical examples: svarâNâm mâlava-kaizike catu-zrutikângasya darzanât kiyad vâ raga-bhâSâ-vibhâSâ-dezî-mârgâdi-gatânâm svarâNâm zruti-vaicitryam brûmah | (NâTya-Zâstra IV, p. 394).

"In Mâlava-kaizika, there is a greater number of svaras with four-zruti interval than is permitted in Gândharva. I say there is a great diversity in the use of zrutis in the svaras employed

in several râgas, bhâSa, vibhâSa, dezî, mârga, etc."

He adds, kim ca antarâla-nyamo….gândharve’vazya-samvedhah | na tv evam gâne  (p. 304) "The rule regarding zruti-intervals has to be strictly observed in Gândharva music, not so in gâna."

Again he says, lopo’pi niyata-gândharve darzito grâma-dvaya-bhedena ca jâty-amza-bhedena darzito | gâne tu rakty-anusâreNa pravRtter asâv aniyatah | tathâpi gândharve yasmâd anâzitvam eva samarthitam tasyâpi madhyamasya bhinna-SaDja-kâlinyâm lopo’dRzyah | (Ibid): "Dropping of notes in the two grâmas and on the basis of amza notes in each jâti was governed by definite rules in Gândharva. For instance, dhaivata was indispensable in the jâtis of SaDja-grâma, and in the jâti of madhyama-grâma, pañcama could never be dropped from any jâti of either grâma, but in Gâna, any note could be dropped in order to bring about a particular aesthetic effect. Even madhyama which is considered to be indispensable in Gândharva is dropped in Bhinna-SaDja in Gâna."

On p.34 (chapter 28) of NâTya-Zâstra, Abhinavagupta quotes vRddha, i.e., senior Kazyapa as saying:

kâkaly-antara-yogena catus-tri-dvayekatah zrutîn |

svarân sarvân prayuñjîta râga-bhâSâsu sarvathâ |

"In râgas and bhâSas, all the kâkali and antar notes can be used, and all notes whether with a four zruti interval, or a three zruti interval or a two zruti interval or even with a one zruti interval can always be employed."

It is difficult to determine exactly the period in which vRddha or senior Kazyapa flourished. It will, however, be admitted by everyone that he is very ancient. Perhaps, he belongs to sixth or seventh century.

Even in such a distant age, according to senior Kasyapa, the use of kâkali niSâda and antar gândhâra was allowed freely in râga and bhâSa, i.e., in Dezî music, whereas their use was allowed only in a few jâtis in Gândharva music and similar freedom was allowed in the use of notes with different zruti values.

So far with regard to distinction in svara with respect to Gândharva and Dezî music. Let us now see their distinction with regard to tâla.

(b) tâla

Abhinava says: tâlo’pi gândharve niyatattvena sankhyâ parimâNam bhañjanam paricchedopâyam yati-svarair vRttim eva melanam âtodya-yogam angângîbhâva-vyâvarudhyamânah sâmya-mâtra-phalam | (NâTya-Zâstra p. 395)

In Gândharva, tâla was also governed by rigid rules which measured time through a fixed number of demarcations. It occupied a secondary position (angângibhâva) to svara. Its main aim was to establish sâmya or equipoise.

In gâna, tâla was flexible. It could improvise patterns to bring out aesthetic pleasure. In Gândharva, no deviation was allowed from the set pattern. In Gândharva, the purpose of tâla

was simply to provide fixed measurement to the notes; in Gâna there could also be colorful rhythmic playing.

(c) pada

There was a distinction between Gândharva and Gâna in respect of pada also. In gâna, pada was more predominant than svara or tâla. In Gândharva, however, svara and tâla were primary and pada occupied a subsidiary position. Bharata himself says in chapter 32, verse 27:

gândharvam yan mâyâ proktam svara-tâla-padâtmakam |

padam tasya bhaved vastu svara-tâlânubhâvakam ||

"I have already said (i.e., in chapters 28–31) that Gândharva consists of svara, tâla, and pada. In this, pada is used only as an aid to project svara and tâla." Unfortunately, this has wrongly been interpreted by some musicologists. Abhinava's commentary on this makes it quite clear what Bharata wants to convey. He says: kim tv anyathâ tasya prâdhânyam anyathâ ca gândharve | tatra hi svara-tâlau pradhânam | tau ca anâdhârau na zakyau prayoktum ity âdhâratayâ yad-upayogi tad âha svara-tâlânubhâvakam iti | (NâTya-Zâstra IV, p. 301). The role of pada is different in Gâna and Gândharva. In Gândharva, primacy is given to svara and tâla. Since svara and tâla could not be used without the base of pada, therefore pada is useful only as a base for svara and tâla. That is why Bharata says that pada serves as an aid to svara and tâla.

We have seen that Abhinava has clearly shown the difference of Gândharva and ”Dezî-râgas in respect of svarûpa, i.e., in respect of svara, tâla, and pada.

Now we have to see their difference in respect of phala or the end they serve.

(2) Difference in respect of phala

Bharata himself, while defining Gândharva says:

atyartham iSTam devânâm tathâ prîti-karam punah |

gandharvâNâm ca yasmâd dhi tasmâd gândharvam ucyate || (NâTya-Zâstra, Ch. 28, 9) "Because it is extremely desired by the gods and gives great pleasure to the gandharvas, therefore is it called Gândharva." Commenting on this, Abhinava says: anâditvâd dRSTâdRSTa-phalatvâc ca pradhânam gândharvam… | gânam hi prîti-kârye vartate | tena tâdâtmyam tâvad ayuktam | Gândharva has been used from time immemorial. It has both dRSTa and adRSTa phala, i.e., it is both pleasant (which is evident) and lays in store merit for the future according to which one earns liberation or is given a place in heaven which is not evident (adRSTa). But gâna is used only for its pleasant or aesthetic effect. It is, therefore, unjust to identify the two."

(3) Difference in respect of kâla

Abhinava shows the distinction of the two in respect of kâla or occasion when each is to be employed with reference to drama. He says that Gândharva could be used only in the pûrvaranga which was a kind of ritual prologue to the drama. In the actual play itself only dhruvâs could be sung in grâma râgas and other forms of Dezî music.

(4) Difference in respect of dharma

It is not clear what Abhinavagupta means exactly by dharma. He has not elaborated this point in his commentary. Dr. Mukund Lath thinks that by dharma, Abhinava means ‘function’. The function of gâna or dezî music was aesthetic pleasure, to please the listeners. The function of Gândharva was only to please the gods.

I have dwelt somewhat at length on the distinction between Gândharva and Gâna, because I feel that this is a very important contribution made by Abhinavagupta to the solution of a very

major problem of Indian music.

All our Sangîta-Zâstris have been trying to describe in their books Dezî râgas in terms of the zruti scheme of Bharata and failed miserably. The result is that a wide gulf has been created between theory and practice in the granthas [textbooks] on music.

Surely our Dezî râgas borrowed many principles from Gândharva music. The sources of many of the râgas were jâtis. But Dezî music did not adhere strictly to all the principles of Gândharva music. Gândharva music could not countenance any change whatsoever in its principles. But Dezî music made many changes in the interest of aesthetic pleasure. Changes were introduced even in Grâma Râgas which were based on Gândharva music and formed a link between Gândharva and Dezî Râgas. Zârngadeva remarks on page 16 of Sangîta-ratnâkara Part II: prasiddhâh grâma-râgâdyâh kecid dezîty apîhitâ "Some of the famous grâma râgas have come under the category of dezî râgas."

Many of our musicologists are under the curious delusion that Bharata's Gândharva music was the only standard classical music of India, that Dezî music did not exist in the time of Bharata, that Dezî music was developed later by borrowing the zruti scheme and other principles of Gândharva, that it, at first, adhered strictly to the zruti scheme of Bharata, but with the advent of the Muslims in India, it fell entirely under the spell of Irani music.

Instead of the nine svara scheme of Bharata, seven zuddha and two vikRta, it adopted the twelve svara scheme of the Muslims and was changed completely.

One of our best musicologists, Acharya Kailasa Chandradeva Brhaspati has unfortunately fallen victim to this myth. In an article, published under the title “bhairava raga abhâratiya hai” [“Bhairava râga is non-Indian”] in Sangîta of Hathras and included in the second edition of this Sangîta-CintâmaNi, he argues that both Bhairava and MâlavagauDa râgas are non-Indian. He adduces two reasons, viz., (1) that the ”svaras of Bhairava do not fit in with the zruti scheme of Bharata and (2) Bhairava as given in Sangîta-ratnâkara is quite different from the one in vogue at present.

Abhinavagupta's views regarding the distinction between Gândharva and Gâna are enough to demolish all such ipse dixit pronouncements.

He has shown that Gândharva and Gâna existed side by side, that even Bharata has advised the use of Gâna or Dezîrâga in Dhruvas, and that though Dezîrâgas adopted certain principles of Gândharva, they did not always adhere to the zruti scheme of Bharata. He has quoted Vrddha Kasyapa, a very ancient authority, to show that changes in the zruti scheme of Bharata were freely made in Dezî Râgas. He even points to practical examples current in his time and says categorically: kiyad vâ râga-bhâSâ-dezî-mârgâdi-gatânâm svarâNâm zruti vaicitryam brûmah |

So Bhairava Râga cannot be ruled out on the basis of zruti vaicitrya. If Bharata's scheme of zruti and mûrchanâ is to be accepted as the basis of all Dezî Râgas, then it is not only Bhairava but many other Râgas, such as Mâravâ, Pûrvî, Vasanta, Pûriya Danâzrî, etc. will have to be ruled out as non-Indian.

Another reason that Acharya Brhaspati has given is that there is sufficient difference between the structure of Bhairava as described in Sangîta-ratnâkara and the one in vogue today.

This too is not a valid reason for declaring Bhairava as non-Indian. Dezî music has never been hide-bound like Gândharva. There is sufficient difference between ancient Mâlava-kaizika and

the modern Mâlkosa. That does not prove that Mâlkosa is non-Indian. The very premise that whatever is not according to Bharata is not Bhâratîya is preposterously fallacious.

Surely Indian Music has been influenced by Iranian music, but that influence started much later in about the 13th century.

Earlier than that, many changes were made from time to time in Dezî Music. Abhinavagupta's long discussion of this problem is a very great contribution towards the clarification of the distinction between Gândharva Music and Dezî Music and of the

internal changes that were made from time to time in Dezî Music.

7.  Kulaka

Now we shall take up another contribution of Abhinavagupta and close. It is probably not well known that Abhinavagupta wrote a commentary on GhaTa-karpara-kâvya known as GhaTa-karpara-kulaka-vivRti, as is clear from the colophon which says: samâptâ iyam ghaTa-karpara-kulaka-vRttih | kRtir mahâmâhezvara-râjânaka zrîmad abhinavagupta-pâdânâm |

Abhinava believes that this is a poem composed by Kalidasa. He says on page 20 of his commentary: kiñ ca atra kartâ mahâ-kavih kâlidâsa iti anuzrutam asmâbhih, i.e., "The tradition goes that this is poem composed by Kalidasa."

Some think that this is a poem by a poet, GhaTakarpara. But the last stanza of the poem itself gives the reason why it is called GhaTakarpara Kâvya. The poem is full of yamakas, i.e., the

repetition in the same stanza of words or syllables similar in sound by different in meaning."

The poet says in the last stanza that he would be prepared to accept such a humble service as carrying water in a broken pot (ghaTa-karpara) of the person who can defeat him in the use of yamakas.

Dr. K.C. Pandey has, in his work on Abhinavagupta, argued at length to prove that the poem was composed by Kalidasa. We are only concerned with the word kulaka and its musical significance. The question of the composer of the poem is irrelevant for us.

The word kulak simply means collection; it is used here in a technical sense. Kulaka is a type of musical poetic composition, all the songs of which present one continuous theme. Kulaka was a gîta-kâvya meant to be presented on the stage.

In Abhinavagupta's time, dance, drama, and music as described in NâTya-Zâstra were a living form of art in Kashmir. In NâTya-Zâstra, Vol I, p 190, Abhinava refers to poets of gîta-kâvyas in Kashmir, such as Ranaka and he had witnessed gîta-kâvyas presented on the stage.

From a study of Abhinava's Commentary, it appears that gîta-kâvyas were of two types, viz., (1) pure gîta-kâvyas and (2) nRtta-kâvya. Pure gîta-kâvyas were such as could be presented on the stage with music, dance, and acting. Songs which consisted of meaningless syllables and were fit for dance only were called nRtta-kâvyas. In other words, Nirgîta or Bahirgîta are examples of nRtta-kâvya.

Kulaka was purely gîta-kâvyapresented on the stage. Abhinavagupta's GhaTa-karpara-kulaka-vRtti goes to prove that Kulaka was a living form of art in Kashmir which went out of vogue with the decline of Gândharva music.

++++++++++++++++