By: Ashwini Srivatsan
Abstract:
Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra is a monumental treatise that, for centuries, has served as the cornerstone of Indian art. It is widely accepted that the Nāṭyaśāstra has significantly shaped the artistic landscape, encompassing diverse traditions of dance and drama. Whether through the concept of Rasa or the notion of transporting a spectator to a transmundane realm, the Nāṭyaśāstra continues to influence the aesthetics, structure, and presentation of Indian art. While the impact of the Nāṭyaśāstra is undeniable, Bharata’s tradition was once merely a part of a broader artistic environment that contained many Sampradāyas. Clues supporting this idea can be found within the Nāṭyaśāstra itself and in other texts from before, during, and after Bharata’s time. This paper delves into pre-Bharata Sampradāyas, focusing on dance and tracing the Sampradāyas that evolved over time. The study reinforces the concept of Sampradāya as the primary foundation for knowledge transfer, creativity, experimentation, and the evolution of Indian art.
Introduction:
The concept of Sampradāya may appear straightforward, yet it is deeply layered and complex. For centuries, knowledge was passed down orally. Sampradāya can be understood as both the transmission of intellectual wisdom and the sharing of lived experiences—both tangible and intangible. Though Sampradāya aims for a certain immutability, tracing artistic lineages reveals that this “immutable system” adapts to change. Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra exemplifies a Paramparā that has traversed through various eras, religious beliefs, and musical traditions, surviving invasions while maintaining its core principles. However, its aesthetics and interpretations have varied based on the time, place, and practitioners. The practice of the Nāṭyaśāstra is known as Mārga, and the Mārga code is flexible by design. In exploring different Mārga Sampradāyas, we find that Mārga is often influenced by local Deśi practices, blending with Deśi aesthetics. This amalgamation of Mārga and Deśi influences could be a key factor in its survival for over two millennia. The fusion of Mārga with Deśi, termed Mārga-Deśi or Margi, is a more common expression of the Nāṭyaśāstra tradition than the pure Mārga practice.
In this paper, we begin by questioning whether Bharata’s work was pioneering—whether it truly represents the genesis of a Sampradāya. Living in the 21st century with limited access to ancient knowledge, we may be quick to view the Nāṭyaśāstra, the oldest and most comprehensive text on Indian dramaturgy, as a groundbreaking work without precedent. Yet, numerous clues suggest that Bharata’s system was one among many Sampradāyas of his time.
Pre-Bharata Sampradāyas:
The dating of the Nāṭyaśāstra is crucial for studying pre-Bharata Sampradāyas. For this study, we place the Nāṭyaśāstra between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE, consistent with Kapila Vatsyayan’s analysis in her book Bharata – The Nāṭyaśāstra. She dedicates an entire chapter to explaining why she believes the Nāṭyaśāstra should not be dated later than the 2nd century CE.
The earliest references to dancers can be found in the Ṛg Veda, where dawn is described as a brightly attired dancer. In the first chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Bharata explains that Brahma created the Nāṭya Veda as a fifth Veda, drawing from the four Vedas. This implies that the Ṛg Veda, which predates the Nāṭyaśāstra, already contained references to a dancing tradition. The existence of dancers in the Ṛg Veda suggests that a dance tradition existed long before the Nāṭyaśāstra.
Further evidence of pre-Bharata dramatic traditions can be found in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (5th century BCE), which mentions authors like Śilālin and Kṛṣāśva, who had codified the art of dramaturgy in texts known as the Nāṭa Sūtras. Additionally, Patañjali (2nd century BCE), in his commentary, describes the Raṅga (stage), music, actors, and themes like the slaying of Kāṃsa and the concept of Rasa. These references show that key elements of the Nāṭyaśāstra, such as Rasa, were already well-established long before Bharata.
From these examples, we can infer that Bharata’s Sampradāya was part of a larger artistic landscape that encompassed numerous traditions, which had evolved into structured practices by the time Bharata codified his work.
Buddhism
The sculptural panel found in the Bharhut Stupa, located in the Satna district of Madhya Pradesh, offers vital clues about the vibrancy of the Mārga tradition as mentioned in the Nāṭya Śāstra. Alexander Cunningham, in his book The Stupa of Bharhut, dates these sculptures to no later than 200 BCE. The Bharhut Stupa, a Buddhist structure serving as a prayer hall or meditation space, features sculptural panels that highlight the deep-rooted existence of the Nāṭya Śāstric tradition.
Sculptural Panel from the Bharhut stupa in the Satna District in the Madhya Pradesh, 200 BC
In this panel, four women on the right side can be seen performing the Kāri Hasta Karaṇa, the 87th Karaṇa mentioned in the fourth chapter of the Nāṭya Śāstra. They also appear to be presenting the Vardhamāna Vidhi, which is referenced in the Pūrva Ranga chapter. According to Bharata, this Vidhi must be performed by four dancers. To the left of the panel, there is an orchestra, which includes instruments such as a harp, lute, and drum, all of which are mentioned in the Nāṭya Śāstra. There are various interpretations regarding the identity of the young boy standing between the two dancers. In Bharhut Inscriptions, edited by H. Luders, it is suggested that the reliefs might depict a dramatic performance where the Gods are congratulating Buddha on his victory over Mara.
The sculptures of Bharhut are either earlier or contemporaneous to Bharata, as per current dating of the Nāṭya Śāstra.
Though the Nāṭya Śāstra finds its roots in the Vedic Hindu tradition with references to the Vedas, Brahma, Maheshwara, Indra, and others, the sculptural panels from Bharhut reveal that the Nāṭya Śāstric tradition of music, dance, and drama was also an essential aspect of Buddhist life.
One plausible conclusion from this is that Bharata’s sampradāya was a living tradition that had been in practice for centuries before Bharata codified it. It had permeated regional cultures and assimilated diverse belief systems, including Buddhism, over many centuries.
Jainism
Around 1350 CE, a Shwetambar Jain Ācārya named Sudha Kalash authored the Saṅgītopaniṣadsārodhara. In the sixth chapter of this text, called Nṛtya Paddhati Prakāśana, many Karaṇas are mentioned, which align with those in the Nāṭya Śāstra and other commentaries such as Abhinavabhārati. Fundamental concepts discussed in the Nāṭya Śāstra continue to form the core discourse on Karaṇas. For example, Sudha Kalash compares the structure of the Karaṇas to that of a Rāga, discussing how the various elements of Aṅga, Upāṅga, Pratyāṅga, Cārī, and Nṛtta Hasta combine to form a Karaṇa. Although the concept of Rāga is absent in the Nāṭya Śāstra, the fundamental idea of what constitutes a Karaṇa has remained unchanged for over 1300-1500 years. He also explains the relationship between a Karaṇa and Bhāva or emotion, a concept found in both the Nāṭya Śāstra and Abhinavagupta’s extensive commentary.
Despite the unchanged fundamentals of a Karaṇa, its elements, and its role in drama, there are differences in the details of how certain Karaṇas are performed. For instance, the Swastika recitam Karaṇa mentioned by Abhinavagupta includes six Nṛtta Hastas. However, Sudha Kalash lists only two, namely Swastika and Recita. The Unmātha Karaṇa described in the Saṅgītopaniṣadsārodhara also differs from the Unmātha Karaṇa described by Bharata, Abhinavagupta, and Śārṅgadeva. Sudha Kalash mentions “Utplutyo Utplutya,” meaning “repeatedly jumping,” an aesthetic closer to Deśī and less akin to Bharata’s tradition. Thus, the Saṅgītopaniṣadsārodhara can be classified as Mārga-Deśī.
This serves as a classic example of an immutable Mārga Sampradāya being subsumed into regional practices over time.
Vaishnavism
The Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa, a predominantly Vaishnavite text, provides another significant reference to the Karaṇas, offering insight into a different stream of Bharata’s Sampradāya. This text, dated to around the 6th century CE during the Gupta period, reflects the continued influence and adaptation of the Nāṭya Śāstric tradition.
In comparison to the Nāṭya Śāstra, which lists 108 Karaṇas, the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa mentions only 90 names. Despite the reduction in number, there are many similarities in the naming and structure of the Karaṇas between the two texts. For instance, the first Karaṇa in the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa is Talapuṣpa, which closely aligns with Talapuṣpaputam, the first Karaṇa in the Nāṭya Śāstra. The second Karaṇa, Apaviddham, matches the fourth Karaṇa in Bharata’s text.
| Vishnudharmottara Purana | Possible Natya Shastra counterpart |
| Talapushpa (#1) | Talapushpaputam (#1) |
| Kshipram (#20) | Akshiptarecitam (#20) |
| Sanchitam (#22) | Ancitam (#23) |
| Lalasitam (#52) | Lalatathilakam (#50) |
| Vanarapluta (#57) | Garudaplutam (#70) |
| Nagaprakridita (#66) | Sarpitam (#81) or Nagapasarpitam (#106) |
| Vipluta (#67) | |
| Natam (#79) | |
While the names of most Karaṇas in the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa resemble those in the Nāṭya Śāstra, a few differences in details suggest regional or temporal variations. These differences reflect the Vaishnavite context in which the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa was compiled, yet the connection to Bharata’s Mārga tradition remains evident.
The presence of Karaṇas in the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa highlights the permeation of the Nāṭya Śāstric tradition into Vaishnavism, showing how the dance and dramatic practices described by Bharata were embraced and integrated into a wide range of religious and cultural contexts. This reinforces the idea that Bharata’s Sampradāya was a versatile and living tradition that adapted across centuries and belief systems, including Vaishnavism.
Since the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa does not offer a detailed explanation of how the Karaṇas were performed, our understanding of the Karaṇas in this text is largely limited to their nomenclature. This restriction makes it difficult to discern the aesthetic differences between the Karaṇas from a Vaishnavite perspective as compared to Shaivite or Buddhist interpretations. However, certain Karaṇas, such as the fifty-seventh Karaṇa ‘Vanarapluta,’ offer clues that hint at Vaishnavite associations. The term ‘Vanara’ likely refers to the Vānaras from the Rāmāyaṇa—characters described as humans with monkey-like features and extraordinary abilities. This suggests that some of the Karaṇas may have drawn inspiration from Vaishnavite mythology, weaving in stories and figures central to this tradition.
Conclusion:
Beyond Buddhism and Jainism, the Mārga Karaṇas have traversed numerous philosophical and spiritual landscapes, including Tantric Shaivism and Advaita Vedānta. Commentators like Abhinavagupta and Śārṅgadeva, both of whom elaborated extensively on the Nāṭya Śāstra tradition, were themselves deeply rooted in the philosophy of Kashmiri Shaivism. The sculptural depictions of the 108 Mārga Karaṇas on the walls of Chola temples in Tamil Nadu indicate the influence of Advaita Vedānta, which was prominent during the Chola period.
Across centuries, different sampradāyas have preserved the core structure laid out by Bharata in the Nāṭya Śāstra. Nevertheless, as various spiritual and philosophical beliefs were layered onto these Mārga Karaṇas, the aesthetic evolved, although the fundamental essence of the movement remained unchanged. Regional dances, or Deśī styles, were deeply influenced by the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual practices of their respective regions, which in turn subtly influenced the Mārga sampradāya. Over time, this dynamic interplay of tradition and regional innovation resulted in the formation of new Sampradāyas, maintaining an unbroken chain of knowledge transmission and creative evolution.
Works Cited:
- Vatsyayan, Kapila. Bharata – Natya Shastra. 2003 ed., Sahitya Akademi, n.d.
- Cunningham, Alexander. The Stupa of Bharhut. Published by Order of the Secretary of State for India in Council.
- Luders, Heinrich, editor. Bharhut Inscriptions. Archaeological Survey of India, 1963.
- Raghavan, V. “Sanskrit Drama: Theory and Performance.” Comparative Drama, vol. 1, no. 1, 1967, pp. 36–48. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41152424. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.
- Krishnamurthy, K., editor. Natya Shastra of Bharata Muni with Commentary Abhinavabharati by Abhinavagupta. 4th and revised ed., Oriental Institute, 1992.
- Miner, Allyn, editor. Sangeetopanishadsarodhar: Vol. Chapter 3. Kalamulasutra Series ed., IGNCA, 1998.
- Bhattacharya, Piyal, and Sharmistha Chowdhury. “How the Ancient Indian Vīṇā Travelled to Other Asian Countries: A Reconstruction Through Scriptures, Sculptures, Paintings and Living Traditions.” National Security, vol. 4, no. 1, 2021, pp. 44–62, www.vifindia.org/sites/default/files/national-security-vol-4-issue-1-article-pbhattachary&schowdhury.pdf.
ashwinisrivatsan 