Mahanataka
By T. K. Joseph
Summary
The text discusses Mr. Trivedi's analysis of Asvaghosa's *Sariputraprakarana*, noting his claim that it aligns closely with the *Natyasastra* (NS) in all aspects, a rarity among extant dramas. Trivedi cites Prof. Keith, who highlights the drama's adherence to classical NS rules, particularly in its *Prakaruna* structure with nine acts matching the Sastra's guidelines (7.72/70, 3.6). However, the text critiques Trivedi's reliance on insufficient data, as Asvaghosa's drama survives only in fragments, representing a minor fraction of the original. Trivedi also references Prof. Keith's Sanskrit text (pp. 43-44) to support his argument about Indian drama's existence during Buddha's time, though the text suggests Keith never intended this interpretation. Additionally, Trivedi's reliance on the *Lalitavistara* is deemed flawed, as the text is dated to the first century B.C., not Buddha's era. The text further mentions a Sanskrit *sloka* (verse) from p. 629 of the *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* (JHQ, December 1931), learned by the author nearly a quarter-century earlier, with noted variants in lines 1, 2, 3, and 5. These variants are cited as potentially interesting for scholarly consideration.
Conclusion
The analysis of Mahāndāteka reveals critical tensions in interpreting Asvaghosa’s *Sariputraprakarana* through the lens of the *Nātyaśāstra* (NS), particularly given the fragmentary survival of the text. While Trivedi’s emphasis on its alignment with NS rules highlights a deliberate classical framework, the reliance on incomplete evidence and secondary sources like Prof. Keith’s commentary raises methodological concerns. The argument for dating the drama to Buddha’s time, further supported by references to the *Lalitavistara*, remains contentious, as the latter’s later composition (1st century BCE) weakens chronological linkages. The document’s unique contribution lies in its critical examination of these claims, exposing inconsistencies in scholarly dependencies and underscoring the challenges of reconstructing ancient Indian drama from fragmentary remains. This analysis not only reframes the discourse on *Sariputraprakarana*’s authenticity but also invites a more rigorous scrutiny of textual and historical evidence in future research.