ṣāḍjī jati

TRANSLATION ³⁵ When pūrvaraiga is performed the organisers of song should use the śuddhā (jātis) in āsārita,⁴⁷ pāņikā ⁴⁸ and the like and after that the formation (alteration) of anisas of jātis (should be taken up). (249) Along with the order of \bar{a}s\bar{a}ritas^{49} and because of that of the angah\bar{a}ras^{50} the formation or variation of amsas in their svaras i.e. in svaras of jatis should be done in the text of vardhamāna⁵¹ (250) [8. The ṣāḍava and auḍava formation of jātis] The sixty-three amsas that have thus been spoken of, out of them each one is accorded the position of ainsa (at a given time) (and accordingly) the ṣāḍava and auḍava formation that is obtained (on account of rule or prescription) is sometimes given up. (251) [ Anu. 134 ] The sixty-three amsas that have been spoken of, out of them each one has to be arranged as anisa (in a given melodic set-up). (In specific situations created by the arrangement of different anisas) sometimes the formation of ṣāḍavita and auḍuvita that is obtained in the context of a given jāti, is given up. He (the author) clarifies this itself. Şādja-madhyamā does not become ṣāḍava on niṣāda being amsaand also on gandhara (being amsa), because ^{52} the omission of a samvadi of the amsa is not accepted. (252) [ Anu. ¹³⁵ ] This means that on niṣāda being the aṁśa, the jāti ṣadjamadhyā does not become ṣāḍava. Why? In ṣaḍja-grāma, in the prescription about ṣāḍava the omission of gandhara is not there. On gandhara being aṁśa, it should be known to be non-ṣāḍava by omission of niṣāda because of the negation of the omission of the sanivādī of the aniśa. Kaiśikī, raktagāndhārī (and) gāndhāri, (these three jātis do not become ṣāḍava) when pañcama is aṁśa, (by the omission of ṛṣabha on account of the negation of the omission of the samvādī of the aṁśa). Similarly, ṣāḍjī does not become ṣāḍava through (the omission of niṣāda) on gāndhāra being the aṁśa and şadjodicyavā should be known not to be şādava (through the omission of ṛṣabha ) on dhaivata being the aṁśa. (253)

VIMARŚA ²⁹⁹ Sixth or third below Gändhāra Şadja Madhyama Fifth or fourth below Şadja Fourth or fifth below Pañcama Şadja Dhaivata Third or sixth below Şadja It is obvious that when a svara other than sadja becomes the amsa, then it will be necessary to search a path for sparseness and abundance. The identity of sadjī will establish with this path and with nyasa. The paryayamsas of ṣāḍjī also become amsás in many other jātis. In view of this, the distinct identity of each jāti cannot be established on the basis of aṁśa because one and the same intervals will obtain in many jātis. Hence, the distinct identity of each jāti will depend on sparseness and abundance alone. The above is true of the seven jātis bearing svara names. In samsargajā vikṛtā jātis, the situation would be all the more complex because they involve the mixture of more than one jāti in each case. The sparseness-abundance of the jātis that are mixed in a given combination would emerge from time to time. This is a more complex form of antara-mārga. Abhi adds with regard to antara-mārga that sometimes a non-aṁśa svara also is not sparse. For example, in kārmāravī, gāndhāra has concert (sangati) with all svaras and thus, it has profuse usage in antara-mārga. The citation from Bharata occurring after Anu. 129 says that nyāsa and antara-mārga, the special use of sparseness and abundance, is responsible for manifesting the identity of jātis. This statement appears to apply only to samsargajā jātis. The weakness (abala) of a sparse svara and the abundance of the balavan(strong) svara has also been mentioned in the description of sparseness and abundance. 39. The description of kārmāravī is available only in the interpolated portion (from SR) in our text. The line cited here occurs in NS XXVIII. as the second half of verse 136. The interpolated portion from SR says - "Many(svaras) are said to be non-amsas on account of antara-marga. Gāndhāra is excessively abundant...... (17) Thus gāndhāra is said to be abundant, inspite of its being non-aṁśa, on account of antaramārga. The use of future tense in our text, in relation to the description of kārmāravī in NS is apparently somewhat queer, as it befits a commentary on NS rather than an independent work. Incidentally, this line of our text containing the use of future tense is found in Abhi Bhā on NŚ referred to in note ³⁸.