________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JANUARY, 1912.
Vikramaditya. I therefore firmly believe that Vasubandhuo and not cha Subandhu must be the correct reading. And the objection that " a Buddhist monk would not accept office" can very well be answered by saying with Dr. Hoernle that the term sdchitya does not necessarily refer to the ministerial office but may simply mean" companionship" or " friendship."
In this connection it is important to read the following, which has been gleaned by Dr. Takakusu from Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu._"King Vikramaditya of Ayodhya, North India, was first a patron of the Sinkhya School, but afterwards a patron of the Buddhisin on account of Vasubandhu's success in religious activity. He sent his Crown Prince (Baladitya) to Vasu bandhu to learn Buddhistn, and the queen too became one of his disciples. When he came to the throne, king Baladitya, in conjunction with his Queen-mother, invited Vasubandhu to Ayodhyâ and favoured him with special patronage." Now, who were this Vikramaditya and bis Crown Prince Bâlâditya ? Dr. Takakusu takes Vikramaditya to refer to Skandagupta, and says simply that Baliditya was his successor, whosoever he may be. Mr. V. A. Smith identifies them with Skandagupta and his nephew Baládity, known as Narasimhagupta from the Bhitari seal, thus setting aside the distinct statement of Paramartba that Baladitya was the son and not nephew of Vikramaditya.2 Prof. Pathak agrees with both Dr. Takakust and Mr. Smith in taking this Vikramaditya to be Skandagupta bat regards Baláditya whom he, like the latter, identifies with Narasitnhagupta, as the immediate successor of Skandagapta, setting aside Paragupta, father of Narasimhagupta mentioned in the Bhitari seal. I think it is not justifiable to accept Paramartha's testimony only partially, or to frame any theory contrary to the evidence of the Bhitari seal. In my opinion, the Vikramaditya alluded to by Paramartlia can be no other than Chandragupta II. Srandagupta was not the only Gupta prince who bore the title of Vikramaditya. Chandragapta II als was styled Vikramaditya. And that he is the Vikramaditya referred to by Paramartha is re.dered certain by the hemistich quoted by Vimana and the note appended to it by him. For Vamana distinctly gives us to understand that the patron of Vasubandhu was a son of Chandragupta. Thas we require a king, who, according to Vamana, was Chandragupta, and, according to Paramartha, Vikramaditya. Chandragupta II only can answer to this doscription, as he is Chandragupta and hail, we know, the title Vikramaditya. Any other conclusion would lead us to confusion as Prof. P.thak's, I am afraid, does. Por, following Dr. Takakusa in taking Vikramaditya to be Skandagupta, be accepts Vasu bandhu's date, vie., A. D. 420-509, proposed by the former and yet says with Vâmana that the son of Chandragupca, who is represented to have just ascended the throne and who according to him is Kamâragupta, was also the patron of Vasubandhu. Kumaragupta, we know from the Bilsad inscription, must bave come to the throne not later than G, E. 96=A. D. 414, the date of this inscription, i.e.. Vasubandhu had distinguished himself as a literate six years earlier than A. D. 420, the date of his birth, according to Dr. Takakuba, which Prof. Pathak accepts. The conclusion, in my opinion, is therefore irresistible that the Vikramaditya mentioned by Paramartha is Chandragupta II, and not Skandagupta. Aud the question now arises : who was the son of this Chandragupta-Vikramaditya, who has been referred to as Bâlûditya by Paramartha? Can it be Chandraprakasa? . After having seen that he is of the Gupta family it will not be difficult to reject such a supposition. Knowing as we do what the names of the imperial Guptas were like, it is inconceivable that Chandraprakasa could have been the proper name of any Gapta sovereign. Can it then be Kumâragupta ? This question, I am afraid, cannot satisfactorily and with certainty be answered. But I think he was probably not Kumaragupta. For he is already known to us as Mahendraditya and cannot in all likelihood be Baladitya. Who can this Baladitya then be ? In this connection it is worth while to turn our attention to certain inscribed clay seale, which the late
Jour, B. As. Society, for 1905, p. 44.
Early History of India, pp. 292-3. . Corpus Inscriptionum Indiarum, Vol. lii, p. 42 ff.
