________________
lxxxiv
ŚRĀVAKABHUMI
bandhus as supposed by Fraüwallner, were patronised by two different Gupta emperors'.
But as we have seen above, the identity of the two Vasubandhus which is also corroborated by literary evidences does not require any further investigation regarding the identification of two Gupta emperors as partons of Vasubandhu(s).
Recently, some further light has been shed over the history of the Guptas and the existence of more than one Bālādityas has also been advocated on the basis of some epigraphic and numismatic evidences?. But we have not been able to trace out the existence of the son of Candragupta in the person of Candraprakāśa. Samudragupta has been suggested as the son of Candragupta and the patron of Vasubandhu. But there are some primary difficulties in accepting this view. Candragupta I, the father of Samudragupta did not bear the title of Vikramāditya and hence his identification is not possible.
Consequently, Candragupta II Vikramāditya's time accords well with the time when Vasubandhu might have
1. Goyal, Ibid., pp. 215-6. 2. S. R. Goyal, ibid., p. 314 sq.; The Problem of Bālādityas in Gupta
History (in S. K. Bhūyan Comm. Vol.). According to him between c. 467-73 A.D. Narasimhagupta Bālāditya I son of Purugupta succeeded Skandagupta who is to be distinguished from a ruler of the same name who was a contempoary of Mihirakula and
conquered him, Imperial Guptas, pp. 323-5 sq. 3. Smith, loc. cit., RAK, Intro., p. 4.
