________________
Ixxxii
ŚRĀVAKABHUMI
Kumārajiva as early as 404-405 A.DI.
The above view-point of Fraüwallner has been questioned on the ground that tradition cannot be completely ignored. Literary evidences also indicate that the author of Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra and Vādavidhi and preceptor of the famous Buddhist logician Dinnāga and the author of Abhidharmakośa were not two different persons4. Hence, we see no cogent reasons in establishing their different personages.
We learn from Paramārtha that one Vikramāditya
1. See, ibid., pp. 34-7; Smith and Macdonell rely on this translation
of Vasubandhu's works and assign the middle of the fourth century to Vasubandhu (vide, Early History of India', p. 347;
Macdonell, ibid., loc. cit.). 2. V. S. Agrawala, ibid., pp. 9-11. 3. Vide, Frauwallner, ibid., pp. 11.1-3; 36-7. 4. यच्चाप्यभिहितमभिधर्मकोशे यत्तदनेकप्रकारभिन्नमित्यादि यावदनेकवर्णसंस्थानं पश्यत
इति बुद्धवचनं प्रत्यक्षलक्षणानुषङ्गागतं चक्षुर्विज्ञानमसङ्गि नीलविज्ञानोदाहरणसंभावनवाक्यवन्नोपपद्यत एवेत्युपपादयिष्यन् न पश्यति इदं पुनर्बुद्धवचनं न प्रमाणमिति, अमिधर्मकोशे निशितं तद्विचार्यम् ।, Dvādasāranayacakra (Vrtti), I.65; इदानीं वसुबन्धोः स्वगुरोस्ततोऽर्थाद्विज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति अवतो यदुत्तरमभिहितं परगुणमत्सराविष्टचेतसा तत्त्वपरीक्षायां परमोदासीनचेतसा तु येन केनचिदभिप्रायेण स्वमतं दर्शितमेव दिन्नेन वसुबन्धुप्रत्यक्षलक्षणं दूषयता . . . . . . Ibid., I.79; vide also, I.52, 82; Mallavādi, the author of Nayacakra belongs to c. 600 A.D. (J. P. Jain, Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India, p. 165); the traditional date of Mallavadi (414 V. E.) is not proved by historical records of Valabhi (vide, R. C. Majumdar in Classical Age, pp. 60-3), and the internal evidence of the work of Mallavādi and Siddhesena Diwäkara, vide, Intro. to Nayacakra, I. pp. V-VI; On the identity of the two Vasubandhus, vide, Agrawala, ibid., pp. 10-14.