Bharata Muni as a Microcosm of Cosmic Emanation: Sustaining, Offering and Expanding Nāṭya through Icchā, Jñāna, and Kriyā

Namaste, everyone!

I render my veneration to all the masters and seniors, and my greetings to all the dignitaries present here. I am humbled to speak on Bharata Muni and see it as a privilege. I thank Sangeet Natak Akademi, New Delhi, from the bottom of my heart for giving me this opportunity. My humble gratitude to Dr. Sandhya Purecha, the Chairman, and Shri Raju Das, the Secretary of Sangeet Natak Akademi. It is indeed a novel task to understand Bharata Muni during this ‘Amrit Kaal’, as I sincerely feel that it is crucial to empower us to reflect on the Indian performance traditions under a new light, and help us to determine newer paths to contribute back to the pool.

In today’s time, as someone begins to know about Bharata Muni and understand his treatise, they may come across a lot of prevalent presuppositions. In pre- as well as post-Independent India, a few Indic scholars, alongside some of their contemporaries abroad, began translating Bharata Muni’s text into European and other modern Indian languages. They intended to bring the repository of knowledge embedded in there and an intricate, documented system of Indian dramaturgy to the fore. In that due course, they expressed a few doubts – Who was Bharata? Was he a lone person, just as the number of the word suggests? Or was it the name of an erstwhile clan or community? The questions were not alien, they said, and pointed at the textual pieces of evidence to corroborate their rumination. The śāstrika system of studying, however, never had any such deliberation insofar as modern Indic scholars of Indology and later from the South Asian studies, who had apprehensions about the traditional Indian way of looking at Bharata Muni. The second set of apprehensions was raised by some modern practitioners – how should we embrace Bharata? Should we stick to the text itself as it is, or treat it as a treatise on tradition? Or better still, is Bharata Muni binding us and restricting us with his prescriptions or opening a new vista?

The illuminated minds in the following times came together and tried to reconcile many such queries. We see Sangeet Natak Akademi organising a grand seminar on Natyashastra under the able guidance of Premlata Sharma, the convenor, and Girish Karnad, then Chairman. We also see Kapila Vatsyayan, following the line of her teacher Vasudeva Sharan Agrawal unequivocally clarifying that the thrust should not be on proving or disproving whether Bharata Muni was a single person as it may have a multitude of meanings – what is most important here is to understand that more than willing to posit himself as an individual, Bharata Muni is trying to offer himself not as an authoritative figure but as an instrument (karaṇa) through whom a larger plethora of knowledge (jñāna) will be get emanated. Thus, the personal Bharata Muni is not important here; rather, the history of discourse and system unfolded through his speech is. This has always been the demarcating feature in the tradition of Indian streams of knowledge – the śāstrakartās, the ṛṣis never emphasised the ādhāra as they themselves were, but focused more on the ādheya – the jñāna which is manifested through them, for which the supreme unconditioned I-consciousness is the spring. In the same line neither it is neither important to detect the physical time when Bharata Muni lived.

Here, one idea should be pellucid – the empirical time we may go back to, only denotes one point of time when the act of physical documentation of the knowledge took place in some particular geographical space. As per the social-ethnographers, the act of carrying that knowledge forward dates back much further, whereas in the case of the traditional Indian system, that purview, too, will render inadequate as jñāna is anādi – it resides in the hṛdaya of the Supreme Being and only manifests the causal, subtle and palpable world with its icchā or Universal Will. We shall come back to this in a while.

Talking about the naming of Bharata, we, again, find another widely accepted notion of treating Bharata as an acronym – Bha-Ra-Ta. Following the 18th century textual exposition of Balarāma Bhāratam by Maharaja Balarama Varma, this notion treats Bha coming from bhāva, Ra from rāga, and Ta from tāla. However, I shall not follow this line of understanding as well.

Today, I would like to understand Bharata Muni from another śāstrika point of view and would try to establish the relevance of Bharata Muni’s vision in regard to contemporary times.

The way the word ‘Bhairava’ is understood may help us to pave the path. भरति रवति वमति यः – he who sustains the creation, pulsates and emanates everything is Bhairava. And quite similarly, he who fills and sustains (bharati), offers it to the others (rāti) and expands it (tanoti) is Bharata – भरति राति तनोति यः, सः भरतः । What does he sustain? – the jñāna of nāṭya. What does he offer? – that same illuminating knowledge of nāṭya. What does he expand? – The blissful experience of rasa.

Now, stating them in such simplistic fashion may sound easy, nevertheless, the connotation is far profound. Let’s focus on each one of them in sequence to acquire a vivid perception about Bharata.

In the 36th chapter of Nāṭyaśāstra, we find Bharata Muni expounding something intriguing –

धुर्यवदेको यस्मादुद्धारोऽनेकभूमिकायुक्तः ।

भाण्डग्रहोपकरणैनाट्यं भरतो भवेत् तस्मात् ॥२३ ॥

So, we can very well comprehend that Bharata here is nothing but a vessel, the ādhāra. There, within the ādhāra of the body, one bears the characters. To rephrase – भरति भूमिकान्स्वाङ्गे यः, सः भरतोत्युच्यते ।

Quite intriguingly, Bharata represents a microcosmic model of cosmic emanation functioning on icchā-jñāna-kriyā. All the possibility of the jñāna of nāṭya lies in repose within him. It is with his will (icchā) to offer them, the characters get manifested, and thus, the body of nāṭya begins to get expanded. So, this icchā results in dāna – an active participation – a sakarmaka dhatu – √रा आदत्ते । This Bharata, or Bharatas, will continue to offer nāṭya to keep the stream of jñāna enriched.

Therefore, we can see how Bharata in one way stands for not any mere ancient Indian individual scholar but a community of artists – a sampradāya of actors, dancers, poets, musicians. This ideation represents a worldview and a mechanism – the jñāna is anādi, it is only manifested just as it is manifested at the arousal of Universal Will (icchā) and manifests everything with kriyā. What may be seen out there can very well be seen in here – यथा ब्रह्माण्डे तथा भाण्डे ।

This act of offering or dāna is important as that immediately invokes the memory of yajña. Dāna has been an inseparable part of the satra of yajña. “In order to produce something”, says Shatavadhani R. Ganesh, “we have to work hard and, having produced it, we should share it.” This hard work alludes to the notion of tapas, and the phala is not just for one to enjoy but to share for the benefit of all sentient beings. This is why we find Parāśara Smriti eulogising dāna –

तपः परं कृतयुगे त्रेतायां ज्ञानमुच्यते ।

द्वापरे यज्ञमेवाहुर्दानमेकं कलौ युगे ॥ २३॥ (प्रथमोऽध्यायः)

Now we may also grasp why Ācārya Abhinavagupta expounded on the naṭadharmatva in the Abhinavabhāratī, his commentary on Bharata Muni’s Nāṭyaśāstra, as the name ‘Bharata’ itself puts forth a dharma – the dharma of manifesting the jñāna of nāṭya and offering it for the benefit of the commoners, as once the jñāna of nāṭya was emanated by Brahmā in a dṛśya-śravya medium. This dāna must not be mere entertainment, for Bharata is not laying the foundation of something as trivial as recreation since it was manifested by Brahmā with a completely different purpose –

धर्म्यमर्थ्यं यशस्यं च सोपदेश्यं ससङ्ग्रहम् ।

भविष्यतश्च लोकस्य सर्वकर्मानुदर्शकम् ॥ १४॥

सर्वशात्रार्थसम्पन्नं सर्वशिल्पप्रवर्तकम् ।

नाट्याख्यं पञ्चमं वेदं सेतिहासं करोम्यहम् ॥ १५॥

It may be viewed as an edutainment, if to put it in today’s terms, and not mere recreation.

Ācārya Abhinavagupta emphasises ‘√विद् धातु ज्ञाने’ to comprehend nāṭya or all art forms as Veda, and makes us aware that Bharata Muni is not merely asking a naṭa to sing and dance to make merry –

न चाप्यस्योपदिश्यते 'गायेत्, नृत्येत्' इति ।

He demarcates this system of practice as the dharma for the naṭa sampradāya –

नटानां तावदेतत् स्वधर्माम्नायरूपतया अनुष्ठ्येयमेव ।

So, comprehending the true connotation of Bharata will continue to take us away from any feeling of losing something, as the act of giving is not associated with insecurity. That understanding may also lead us to refrain from the unwanted foliage of vanity or exhibitionism, as the performing arts sometimes pose to be in the contemporary world. The act of practising art must be undertaken modestly.

What is the kind of dāna suggested by the ra of the word Bharata? It is the Supreme kind of offering of all offerings – taking one to the path of Self-realisation. In the 36th chapter, Bharata says –

या गतिर्वेदविदुषां या गतिर्यज्ञकारिणाम् ।

या गतिर्दानशीलानां तां गतिं प्राप्नुयाद्धि सः ॥ २७ ॥

दानधर्मेषु सर्वेषु कीर्त्यते तु महत् फलम् ।

प्रेक्षणीयप्रदानं हि सर्वदानेषु शस्यते ॥ २८ ॥

गान्धर्वं चेह नाट्यं च यः सम्यक् परिपालयेत् ।

स ईश्वरगणेशानां लभते सद्गतिं पराम् ॥ ३० ॥

Now, at this juncture, let us understand dharma in this context. Many have opted for a much linear translation ‘duty’ for dharma, whereas duty is just one bit of dharma – it is rather an essence of sustainability which forms the core of dharma, so what we get to learn from Bharata is the sustenance of a knowledge-stem flowing since time immemorial for the benefit of many beings – बहुजन सुखाय बहुजन हिताय च ।

This principle of sustenance must also be practised, which incites the aspect of sādhanā or tapas. Bharata Muni himself epitomises the notion of śiṣya – he is a learner who learns the wisdom of performance from Brahmā, the art of kaiśikī vṛtti from Nandīkeśvara; he never jumps the gun, yet indulges in creative expression of art whilst adhering to the śāstrika parameters. His own activities within the treatise of Nāṭyaśāstra aid us in grasping the true meaning of śāstra and its necessity – śāstra “helps us remain within a time-tested framework and prevents us from slipping away.” Śaṅkarācārya says, the sole purpose of śāstra is to help us, since it is the essential reminder for us and not an enforcer of activities.

ज्ञापकं हि शास्त्रं न कारकमेति स्थितिः (भाष्य, बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद १.४.१०)

Thus, we may actually rediscover the word ‘Bharata’ as the distinguishing marker for the

dharma of the naṭas (नटधर्मत्वपरिच्छेदकः).

We have so far discussed bharati and rāti for Bha and Ra. Now, let us move towards tanoti for Ta. What does Bharata or the Bharatas expand? They expand the body of nāṭya through their own bodies, and as a result expand rasa, which is akhaṇḍa. It is interesting how the same root tan renders two aspects quintessential to nāṭya–tanu and tantrī. A strike on the stringed instrument creates an expansion of āhata nāda, but it fades away after a certain span of time. In the same way, our body also gets manifested and then decays and finally gets into oblivion – Bhartṛhari in the Vākyapadīya says –

अध्याहितकलां यस्य कालशक्तिमुपाश्रिताः ।

जन्मादयो विकाराः षड्भावभेदस्य योनयः ॥ १.३ ॥

Ever since birth, we go through sustenance and growth, before maturing, decay, and ultimately our physical body gets dissolved in the pañca-bhūtas. Likewise, the body of the nāṭya gets expanded. A treatment is found in the Daśarūpaka where we see how, on the basis of pañca-arthaprakṛti and pañca-avasthā, the body of nāṭya gets expanded. The treatment, much curiously, is alike a body. The body of nāṭya that is kathāvastu is referred to as śārīra. The five states or pañca-avasthā render the psychological state of the characters –

अवस्थाः पञ्च कार्यस्य प्रारब्धस्य फलार्थिभिः।

आरम्भयत्नप्राप्त्याशानियताप्तिफलागमाः॥ १९ ॥

The struggle, the ascension and descension creating such states are the fruits of the prārabdha or deeds of the characters. What is intended here is to render a multi-faceted fruit of watching the performance of kathāvastu in nāṭya – the first layer is becoming aware by observing the toils of the characters and acting justly. If properly done, one may enjoy the fruit of the good deeds as shown in the performances. This is the layer of dharma and artha. The savouring of the visual aesthetic, the mellifluous tune of the music emits a pleasurable experience for the prekṣakas. This corresponds to satiating kama. However, as the kavi employs the pañca-arthaprakṛti (bīja-bindu-patākā-prakarī-kārya) to craft the avasthā of the characters, one realises, both by performing and witnessing, how fleeting can be any joy, how momentary can be any rejoice, and so how empty they are. Receiving such impetus over and over again may render a sense of detachment from the fruits of one’s actions or experience impersonalisation in their enactment, just as Bhāgavad Gītā says–

दुःखेष्वनुद्विग्नमनाः सुखेषु विगतस्पृहः ।

वीतरागभयक्रोधः स्थितधीर्मुनिरुच्यते ।। (श्रीमद्भागवद्गीता २.५६)

This may prepare one to be a jivanmukta – the state of being liberated during one’s lifetime.

The śarīra of nāṭya consists of five joints, just like a human body – mukha, garbha, etc., to give not just the psychological rendition but also a physical sense of the body. In this way, with the joints and inner (antaḥkaraṇa) and outer body (bhogāyatana śarīra), the aspect of tanoti of Bharata’s name really treats the body as a tool to attain liberation. It becomes the instrument – karaṇa, for that. No wonder Bharata’s system upholds such a practice of āṅgikābhinaya through karaṇa, which takes the practitioners beyond the dichotomy of heya and upādeya, and turns their physical bodies into naivedya, and in the end, attains the body of Śiva that is a complete transcendence from the physical space to no space!

The naming of the sandhis of itivṛtta as per the limbs of the human body also alludes to the cycle of cosmic time and universe as the manifested cosmic body of the Supreme Being – Puruṣa, as depicted in the Puruṣa sūktam. The Nāṭyaśāstra, being a part of the śāstrika system, also compels one to join the dots and arrive at the greater schema of time, where empirical time becomes insignificant. All these realisations happen for both the spectators and the actors in Bharata’s system, not through any arid journey but through a joyous experience of rasa – the aesthetic experience of savouring art. Thus, rasa takes us from the material to the spiritual, which finally culminates in corresponding, says Shatavadhani R. Ganesh, and in becoming Brahman. This is the ultimate goal of Bharata’s nāṭya – रसो वै सः, सः वै रसिकः –

to attain the realisation that we all have come out of that Unconditioned Bliss and in the end shall go back to that Supreme Bliss –

आनन्दाध्येव खल्विमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति । आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्तीति ।

- (तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्, भृगुवल्ली, षष्ठोऽनुवाकः - १)

In today’s time of recurrent bout of emotional upheavals and incessant pull of rat-race, it is important to keep the head straight with such reminder in an endearing way – that is the way of nāṭya’s teaching – to impart kāntā-sammita upadeśa – so that none’s ego is hurt and they take the medicine mixed with jaggery.

To conclude, let us see another illuminating layer – the status of Bharata as ‘Muni’. The writings in English on Bharata Muni or referring to his text many a time omit this ‘Muni’. Withstanding the gravity, one may falsely recognise it to be a mere act of veneration added in the later days. However, it is not so. Whenever Indian traditions refer to anyone who has divulged the ultimate truth or Brahmavidyā of any particular knowledge-stem has been regarded with such reverence. These ultimate sayings are called the āptavākyas. The same kind of venerating remarks can also be found in the Abhinavabhāratī where Ācārya Abhinavagupta refers to Bharata Muni’s sayings as ‘ādivākya’ and refers to them as unsurmountable. The same kind of veneration is also observed for Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali in the case of vyākaraṇa. They are called the ārṣa ācārya who have revealed the apauraṣeya jñāna to be carried forward and used as an igniting means for Self-realisation. And so, they are not to be treated in an individualistic sense at any given point in time.

In this way, the layered meaning of the word Bharata may be understood. As Bharata Muni himself has drawn the analogy of bīja and vr̥kṣa several times in his treatise, his name itself is found to be enacting like a seed, and this body of the text and its practice are the tree sprouted from there. If in this way we try to understand Bharata Muni, we can definitely begin to stride on the path of sustaining the invaluable, intangible repository of Indian knowledge systems and move closer towards realising our true Self, and through this process help Bharatavarsh to awake to a new svarga.

Thank you!

Editorial Note

This volume presents a lecture on Bharata Muni delivered at the Amrit Yuva Kalotsav 2024, organized by Sangeet Natak Akademi at Kala Academy, Goa. Part of a series on foundational figures of Indian classical arts, the lecture explores Bharata Muni—author of the Nāṭyaśāstra—through a traditional śāstrika lens.

Rather than debating his historicity, the speaker interprets Bharata as a cosmic principle of performative knowledge (nāṭya-jñāna), using Sanskrit philology to unpack the name Bharata as bharati-rāti-tanoti (sustains-offers-expands). Drawing from the Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinavabhāratī, Upanishads, and dharmaśāstra texts, the paper aligns aesthetic theory with spiritual goals like dharma, rasa, and mokṣa.

This is not just a scholarly text but a living dialogue with tradition. Sanskrit terms appear with transliteration and translation. Readers unfamiliar with these concepts may consult the reference list provided.

This text preserves the oral character of the original lecture, including direct addresses to the audience and traditional Sanskrit invocations. The title is given by the Editorial Team.

References