________________
vii
of that great institution in preference to others. Like the present day Sastrartha, debates in those days were held through the medium of the Sanskrit language, and the language which was used was very terse and difficult. To have such a command over speaking the Sanskrit language was surely beyond the power of any non-Indian who had not begun his study at a very early age. Consequently this story of HiuenTsang's going to Orissa as a special representative of Nālandā looks rather suspicious. In other places too Hiuen-Tsang has earned such undeserved tribute from the compilers of his life. So it is quite possible that the compilers purposely avoided the mention of Dharmakirti, since it would occupy the chief place in the picture and Hiuen-Tsang's glory would grow dim. Personally I think that there is no room for the third proposition and Dharmakirti was already dead at the time of Hiuen-Tsang's arrival and he was not bound to mention the name of all the scholars, nor need he be interested in their works. (4) Hiuen-Tsang writes that Sakraditya was the founder1 of Nālandā. Sakrāditya and Mahendrāditya having identical meanings, can be represented by the same Chinese ideographs; Mahendraditya is another name for Kumaragupta (415-55 A.C.), so the University was not in existence before 415 A.C. From Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu, and Chinese and Tibetan records, we do not learn about Vasubandhu's visiting Nālandā. That Nālandā belonged to the Sarvästivāda sect till the
INTRODUCTION
16 Nālandā copper plate of the Gupta emperor, Samudragupta (340-75 A.C.) also supports this view by not mentioning the name of that institution,
