365bet娱乐

4
. A comparison of the mythological elements of the NS with those in R膩m膩ya峁嘺 and Mah膩bh膩rata shows that these are similar in nature. 37 5.
The author of the NS mentions an Arthas谩stra. Bhasa once
mentions the NS. M.M. Ghosh again discusses whether it should be
assigned to Maurya period (324 -336 B.C.), as the geographical data
seems to point in this direction. On the basis of areas mentioned
for the production of styles, he concludes it to be written in 500
B.C.. As it mentions Sakya-Sramanas it cannot be assigned to a
date much prior to the Mah膩parinirv膩峁嘺 of Buddha. In the
opinion of "Keith it appears clearly to be based on the
examination of a dramatic literature, which has been lost, eclipsed
by the perfect dramas of K膩岣穒d膩sa and successors. The Pr膩k峁泃s
recognised by the NS are clearly later than those of Asvagh艒峁�a and
more akin to those found in Bhasa. The NS again recognises the
use of Ardham芒gadhi, found in these two dramatists but not later,
while like them he ignores the Mah膩r膩峁�tri of the later dramas. He
further points out that allusion to the NS by Bhasa" shows; it is
most probable that both he and K膩岣穒d膩sa had knowledge of the proto-
type of the present text. Thus there is nothing to contradict about
the date thus vaguely indicated by Jacobi in his introduction
to Bh膩visa峁�峁璦ka which is suggested to be in the 3rd century A.D.
A.B.Keith, SKD.OUP Reprint (1954), pp.291ff
11.
12.
Bh膩sa Avim膩raka Act II