Kumārajīva is known to have written a biography of Vasubandhu in the year 409 but it is unfortunately lost. Hui-yuan (344-416) quotes a verse of Vasubandhu’s Vimśatikā.
However, some scholars have tried to explain it by speculating the existence of two Vasubandhus, one in the 4th century and another in the 5th century A.D. Although Yuan Chwang, I-tsing and Tārānātha and even Paramārtha were not aware of the existence of two Vasubandhus, yet some scholars on the basis of speculation claim that there were two Vasubandhus. They mention one Vasubandhu who had the prefix Vriddhāchārya Sthavira, The books written by Vasubandhu and translated into Chinese around 400 A.D. are attributed to the elder Vasubandhu. But what about Asanga’s books which were translated into Chinese language around 400 A.D.? Had there been two Vasubandhus, Paramārtha would have certainly clarified it. He has made it clear that Asanga was born of Brāhmana mother Kausika with a Kshatriya father and Vasubandhu was born of the same mother with a Brāhmana father. Paramārtha, who gave this minute, unwarranted detail, would have certainly mentioned the existence of a prior Vasubandhu whose so many books were translated into Chinese language.
Now the question arises as to who was the Vikramāditya who employed Vasubandhu to teach his son? It is learnt from the biography of Vasubandhu that this king Vikramāditya had spent huge money on welfare of his subjects and construction of temples. From Vasubandhu’s biography it is learnt that at Ayodhyā a philosophical debate (śāstrārtha) had taken place between Vindhyavāsin, the Sāmkhya teacher and Buddhamitra, the guru of Vasubandhu. Vindhyavāsin vanquished Buddhamitra and was rewarded three lacs of gold which he distributed amongst people. When Vasubandhu returned home, i.e. Ayodhyā, Vindhyavāsin was no more, so he wrote Paramārtha-saptatīkā for the ascendancy of his philosophy over the Samkhya. King Vikramāditya was so pleased with him that he, too, was awarded three lacs of gold coins. With this reward he established three monasteries at Ayodhyā.
There is another allusion to Vasubandhu in the ‘Kāvyālankāra sūtra-vritti ’of Vāmana. It reads as follows:
सोऽयं सम्प्रति चद्रगुप्ततनयश्चद्रप्रकाशो युवा।
जातो भूपतिराश्रयः कृतधियां दिष्ट्या कृतार्थश्रमः।।
आश्रयः कृतधियामित्यस्य च वसुबन्धुसाचिव्योपक्षेपपरत्वात् साभिप्रायत्वम्।
(3.2.2 : वृत्ति)
At present this very young son of Chandragupta, shining like the moon and destined to succeed in efforts, is the king who is the asylum of scholars.
Here the expression ‘the asylum of scholars’ indicates that Vasubandhu was the tutor of the king.”
Now in view of Vāmana’s verse it is clear that the king who appointed Vasubandhu the tutor of his son was Chandragupta and Paramārtha says that he was Vikramāditya. So the king was undoubtedly Chandragupta Vikramāditya and it matches with the known period of Vasubandhu. Chandragupta II Vikramāditya’s two sons are known. One is Govindagupta and another is Kumāragupta known as Mahendrāditya or Śakrāditya also. But the problem arises because the son named in Paramārtha’s biography is Bālāditya. Stefan Anacker, the author of the book “Seven Works of Vasubandhu” has identified Govindagupta with Bālāditya on the ground that Govindagupta was known, through Vaiśālī (Besarh) clay seals, as a mahārāja:
महाराजाधिराज- श्रीचन्द्रगुप्तपत्नी- महाराजश्री गोविन्दगुप्तमाता महादेवी श्रीध्रुवस्वामिनी श्रीयुवराजभट्टारकपादीय कुमारामात्याधिकरणस्य महाराज- गोविन्दगुप्तयुवराजभट्टारकपादीय बालाधिकरणस्य”, etc.
The great Queen Sri Dhruvasvāminī, wife of Śrī Chandragupta, Emperor, and mother of the great king Govindagupta, (issues this) from the office of the Prince to His Highness, the Young King, The great king Govindagupta (issues this) from the Military Office of his Highness the Young King.
Although a Gupta King Bālāditya, who is identified with Narasimhagupta, the son of Purugupta, is known to history, he cannot be equated with the disciple of Vasubandhu because of many factors including the late date of Bālāditya. According to the inscriptions, official geneology and royal seals it appears that Kumāragupta Mahendrāditya was succeeded by Skandagupta and after his death Purugupta is supposed to have ascended the throne. Thereafter, Budhagupta, Vainyagupta and Bhānugupta are known to have ruled the country before Narasimhagupta ascended the throne around 515 A.D. He is credited to have defeated the Huna King Mihirakula. Bālāditya resolved to kill Mihirakula but the latter was released on the intercession of his mother. Bālāditya’s father was Purugupta and even if it is accepted that Purugupta ascended the throne and adopted the title of Vikramāditya, this Bālāditya cannot be the disciple of Vasubandhu because there where many Kings between these two persons.
Stefan Anacker’s argument is that since the Prince Govinda-gupta carried the title Mahārāja during his father’s time, he was perceived as king by Vāmana and Paramārtha. He has cited many examples to prove that during the life time of a King Princes were bestowed upon titles like Maharāja when they were anointed as Yuvarāja which was done normally at the age of 16. This is a plausible argument. But Anacker’s suggestion that Govindagupta, who was Mahārāja (Governor) at Vaiśālī, was the king of Ayodhyā also is a weak presumption. Had Govindagupta really been the elder brother and successer to Chandragupta II Vikramāditya, he would have ascended the throne after the Emperor’s death. Had Kumaragupta been a younger brother and forcibly captured the imperial throne, in c. 415 A.D. the elder brother Govindgupta would not have survive as Mahāraj, as his name figures in the Mandsor inscription dated 467 A.D. Therefore, it is more probable that Chandragupta II’s elder son Kumāragupta might have been a Yuvarāja at Ayodhyā. Like Govindagupta he, too, might have carried the title Mahārāja and he was the pupil of Vasubandhu at Ayodhyā. It is known that Samudragupta died in c. 375 A.D. and thereafter Chandragupta II might have married Dhruvadevī between 376 and 380 A.D. and Kumāragupta might have been born in c. 382 A.D. These are presumptions based on historical facts and therefore dates are in close proximity to historical events. At the age of 8, boys used to be sent to teachers for academic initiation and at the age of 16 they were usually declared Yuvarāja. Therefore, Chandragupta Vikramāditya might have requested Vasubandhu to initiate his son in c. 390 A.D. and this son Kumāragupta, like Govindagupta, might have been declared Mahārāja in c. 398 A.D. Since Chandragupta was reigning from his capital Patna and at times camping at Ujjain in his expedition against the Śakas, the young Kumāragupta might have been Prince or Mahārāja at Ayodhyā and after becoming Yuvarāja he might have been a patron of learned persons, as Vāmana has informed us in his Kāvyālankāra. Therefore, the Vikramāditya in Paramārtha’s Biography of Vasubandhu is Chandragupta II Vikramāditya and non-else.
Now the question arises as to how Bālāditya is equated with Kumāragupta. In the Chinese translation even personal or geographical names are translated, e.g. the name Pavana Kumāra does not retain its original identity, but it becomes ‘the son of wind’. There is a thin difference between Bāla and Kumāra and Bāla may replace in the name of the Gupta king.
In Sanskrit, Indra is one of the twelve epithets of the Sun. The following śloka of the Sāmba-Purāna confirms it:
इद्रो धाताऽथ पर्जन्यः पूषा त्वष्टाऽर्यमा भगः।
विवस्वान् विष्णुंशुश्च वरुणो मित्र एव च।। (साम्ब-पुराणम्, 4.6)
Śakrādity
a of Yuan Chwang is the Mahendrāditya of the Emperor’s coins. Āditya was a part of his name. It appears that when he was a Yuvarāja, he was a Kumāra and was called Kumārāditya or Bālāditya and when he became the king, he was called Kumāragupta or Mahendrāditya or even Śrī Māhendra.
What Vasubandhu, a Buddhist teacher, taught young Kumāra Mahendra, was reflected in his royal career throughout his life. He never shed unnecessary blood for the aggrandisement of his empire. But he succeeded in keeping his empire intact. He was the same Gupta emperor Śakrāditya, who is said to have laid the foundation of the Nalanda University and established one ‘Sanghārāma’ there, by the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing.
It is claimed by many historians on the basis of his ‘Apratigha’ style of coins, in which he appears like a bhikshu, that he had embraced Buddhism towards the end of his life and abdicated the throne in favour of his worthy son Skandagupta who saved this country from the severe onslaught of the Hunas. It is indicated by the following expression on the Junagadh Inscription of Skanda gupta:
पितरि सुरसखित्वं प्राप्तवत्यात्मशक्त्या।
The father got the company of gods by his own power. It was the outcome of the teaching of Vasubandhu which was a source of inspiration even during the last days of his life. Thus, the Gupta Emperor who sent his son to Vasubandhu for getting education was Chandragupta II Vikramāditya and the son’s name was Kumāra gupta.
(17) Fahien’s account
Fahien visited Ayodhyā during the reign of Chandragupta II and observed that Sha-chi (Sāketa) was the great country of the legend of Buddha’s Danta-kāshtha which he narrates in the following words.
“SHA-CHE. LEGEND OF BUDDHA’S DANTA-KASHTHA.
Going on from this to the south-east for three yojanas, they came to the great kingdom of Sha-che. As you go out of the city of Sha-che by the southern gate, on the east of the road (is the place) where Buddha, after he had chewed his willow branch, stuck it in the ground, when it forthwith grew up seven cubits, (at which height it remained) neither increasing nor diminishing. The Brahmans with their contrary doctrines became angry and jealous. Sometimes they cut the tree down, sometimes they plucked it up, and cast it to a distance, but it grew again on the same spot as at first. Here also is the place where the four Buddhas walked and sat, and at which a tope was built that is still existing.” [A record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, translated by James Legge, Chapter- 19].
According to the local legend the present Danta-dhāvana mutt opposite the Digambara Akhara, belonging to the Rāmānuja sect, is the place where Rāma used to wash his teeth. It may have some connection with the account of Fahien.
(18) Jānakī-haranam of Kumāradāsa of Śrīlankā
Kumāradāsa was a great poet of Śrīlankā who composed the epic Jānakī-haranam, i.e. the abduction of. Rājaśekhara has complimented this epic in the following verse:
जानकीहरणं कर्तुं रघुंशे स्थिते सति।
कविः कुमारदासश्च रावणस्य यदि क्षमौ।।
Who can dare to commit ‘Jānkī-haranam’, i.e. to abduct Sītā, while living Raghuvamśa, i.e. Rāma, a scion of Raghu? Another meaning is; Who can dare to compose Jānakī-haranam, while Raghuvamśa epic is in existence? The answer is that Rāvana and Kumāradāsa are competent to do so.
In the concluding verses of the last (20th) chapter of the epic the poet has written about his own early life in four verses. In the 60th verse the poet informs that the name of his father was Mānita, who was a scholar and valiant warrior. He was a soldier in the army of the Ceylonese King Kumāramani. Mānita was killed in a battle while fighting valiantly. In next three verses he informs that his two brave maternal uncles – Megha and Agrabodhi – brought up the poet affectionately from cradle and inspired him to compose this epic. The poet further informs that he was afflicted with some disease since his birth. Though the poet does not inform his handicap, Rājaśekhara in his ‘Kāvya-mīmāmsā’ refers to the legend that he was blind since his birth. This brief autobiography demolishes the general misconception that the poet was a Ceylonese King. He was merely a son of a soldier in the Srilankan army.
There are many legends which associate Kālidāsa with Kumāradāsa and describe them contemporary. According to them Kālidāsa went to Śrīlankā on the invitation of his friend Kumāradāsa who was the King there. Kālidāsa fell into illicit love with some damsel in the land and was killed with a dagger. Kumāradāsa committed suicide on the pyre of Kālidāsa. There is a site of the Samādhi of Kālidāsa in Śrīlankā. Pūjāvalī, a Singhalese text of the 13th century and Perukumba Siritha, another Singhalese text of the 16th century mention this tradition. But it contains many flaws. As per his own testimony Kumāradāsa was not the King of Ceylon but a son of a Ceylonese soldier. In addition, from the references found in his epic, it appears that Jānakī-haranam was composed in the 7th century. Pt. Baladeva Upadhyaya in his book ‘Sanskrit Sāhitya Kā Itihās’ informs that two verses of Jānakī-haranam are quoted in ‘Janāśrayī-Chhandovichiti’, a work of the last quarter of the 6th century. Thus, it may be reasonably presumed that the Jānakī-haranam was composed around 550 A.D.
Kumāradāsa composed the epic in the Ceylonese Island, far away from Ayodhyā. But Ayodhyā was so important in the 6th century that this distant poet starts the epic with a eulogy of Ayodhyā in 11 verses.
Here the first verse is quoted:
आसीदवन्यामतिभोगभाराद्दिवोऽवतीर्णा नगरीव दिव्या।
क्षत्रानलस्थानशमी समृद्ध्या पुरामयोध्येति पुरी परार्ध्या।।1।।
Ayodhyā was like a divine city descended from heaven under the load of abundant pleasure. It was the best amongst all towns because of prosperity and looking like a śamī tree full of royal fire.
Thus, it is clear that Ayodhyā was an epitome of prosperity to a distant Ceylonese soldier’s son in the 6th century and it was not an abandoned city.
(19) Yuan-Chwang’s account on Ayodhyā
After the disintegration of the Gupta empire the Maukharis established their independent authority at Kannauj and after the tragic death of Graha Verma, the husband of Rājyaśrī, the sister of Harshavarddhana, kingdoms of Thaneshwar and Kannauj were combined and Harshvarddhana became the undisputed emperor of the region. During his reign Yuang Chwang visited India and gave a description of Ayodhyā which comprised many Buddhist monasteries and 10 Deva temples. The following is the description of Ayodhyā by Yuan-Chwang:
O-YU-To (Ayodhya): This kingdom is 5000 li in circuit and the capital about 20 li. It abounds in cereals, and produces a large quantity of flowers and fruits. The climate is temperate and agreeable, the manners of the people virtuous and amiable; they love themselves to learning. There are about 100 sangharamas in the country and 3000 priests, who study both the books of the great and little Vehicle There are ten Deva temples; heretics of different schools are found in them, but few in number” (’Si-Yu-Ki Buddhist Records of The Western World’ by Samuel Beal, book V, p. 225)
Even an avowed Buddhist pilgrim admits that there were10 Deva temples at Ayodhyā. But how a positive evidence like this can be negated by an established historian like Mr. Panikkar is best illustrated in this observation:
“Hsuan Tsang also does not mention any place of Rama worship, even though he has recorded the existence of ‘ten Deva temples’ (Vaishnava temples?) in Ayodhya in the seventh century A.D.”
Mr. Panikkar should realize that Huen-Tsang was not writing a history of sects of the Sanātana religion. He was a Buddhist and he considered followers of other faiths as ‘heretics’. The fact that
he noticed the existence of ten Deva temples shows that these temples were so prominent that even a pilgrim of another faith could not ignore them. It is an established fact that long before his arrival Rama’s idols were being installed in temples, as it is evident from the testimony of the Brihat-samhitā of Varāhamihira. Thus, there is no reason to presume that Ayodhyā was devoid of any Rāma temple.
Although Yuan Chwang did not categorically mention that there existed a Rāma temple at Ayodhyā, it is a historical fact that the Rāmāyana was spread by six manuscripts carried by Huen-Tsang from India to China. A Tibetan scholar J.W. De Jong in his article “The Story of Rāma in Tibet” published in the Sahitya Akademy’s book “Asian Variations in Ramayan” has written:
“The story of Rama is well known in Tibet and it is told in many texts. The oldest known version is found in six manuscripts from Huen-Tsang. Tun-huang in the north-west of China was occupied by the Tibetans during a period of about sixty years from 787 to 848 A.D. It is probably during the Tibetan occupation that this version of the story of Rama was written in Tun-huang. It is also possible that the manuscripts containing this story could have been written in Central Tibet and brought to Tun-huang during the Tibetan occupation.”
Yuan Chwang has given a very interesting origin to the name of this great country by writing the following details:
“Book II
1. Names of India
“On examination, we find that the names of India (T’ien-chu) are various and perplexing as to their authority. It was anciently called Shin-tu, also Hien-tau; but now, according to the right pronunciation, it is called In-tu. The people of In-tu call their country by different names according to their district. Each country has diverse customs. Aiming at a general name which is the best sounding, we will call the country In-tu. In Chinese this name signifies the Moon. The moon has many names, of which this is one. For as it is said that all living things ceaselessly revolve in the wheel (of transmigration) through the long night of ignorance, without a guiding star, their case is like (the world), the sun gone down; as then the torch affords its connecting light, though there be the shining of the stars, how different from the bright (cool) moon; just so the bright connected light of holy men and sages, guiding the world as the shining of the moon, have made this country eminent, and so it is called In-tu. (Vol. I. 69)
Ayodhya Revisited Page 11