RAJA BHARTRIHARI PART 1 By

Yoga Nath www.gorakhnath.net

2

Introduction Note: This article is still in draft state, which took shape in the beginning

of the year 2013, and which I was unable to complete properly and publish since then because of lack of time. I will try to further improve it and complete and publish its second part, which is in less developed state in couple of months. Also this work may still lack some references.

Since long time ago, the name of Raja Bhartrihari (Bhartṛhari) or Bhartri was widely famous in India, as the name of the great king who has renounced his throne, to become an ascetic. The dramatic story of his life traditionally has been one of favorite themes of ballads sung by wondering minstrels and plays performed by folk theaters all over India. The most legends about him agree that prior his renunciation, he was the king of Malva Kingdom with its capital Avantikā, who renounced his throne in favor of his younger brother Vikramaditya. The ancient city Avantikā is identical with the modern city Ujjain, situated in the Madhya Pradesh State of India. Besides the popular story about his remarkable renunciation, Raja Bhartrihari is widely recognized as one of most remarkable Indian poets in Sanskrit, distinguished grammarian and a Siddha yogi as well. The three poetical books ascribed to his authorship, collectively known as Subhāṣita Triśati (three hundred verses of good counsel or spoken well) or three sets of hundred verses each (Śataka Traya) are recognized as the classical works of the Indian literature. The first of them is called Vairāgya Śataka, or hundred verses on renunciation; the second is known as Śṛṅgāra Śataka or hundred verses on beauty and ugliness of love; and the third is Nīti Śataka or hundred verses dedicated to the art of good conduct. After examining these works, it is becomes clear that they were composed by a highly educated person, if not to say too sophisticated for his time, who lived the life of a prince, and later has became a yogi of an unnamed ascetic order of the Shaiva Tradition (probably Pashupata). In the legendary tradition of the Natha Yogis, one out of the Twelve Sub-sects of the Natha Sampradaya, recognizes Raja Bhartrihari as its ideal yogi and the probable founder, under the name Siddh Vichar Nath. Another name of the same sub-sect, which named so in the honor of his renunciation is Bhartṛhari Bāirāg (the Renunciation of Bhartrihari)or Vairāgya Panth. Natha Yogis also believe that it was their legendary Guru Goraksh Nath, who induced Raja Bhartrihari to renounce his throne.

Besides the three poetical works, mentioned above, which are traditionally ascribed to his name, there exist few more works in Sanskrit attributed to his authorship, which related to grammar, philosophy and logic. In addition, there are few works written in an old Hindi dialect directly related to the Natha practices, which also attributed to his authorship. Few researchers advocate the point of view that the poetical work known as Bhatti Kavya (or Ravaṇa Badha), which is authored by a person known as Bhartri Swamin or Bhatti Sawamin, was also written by him, because the name Bhatti is derived from Bhartri, which is true in accordance with the Monier Williams Sanskrit Dictionary. Some also believe that a commentary on Satapata Brahmana of Yajur Veda, attributed to the authorship of Hari Swamin, was also composed by him. Also, in the commentary of Adi

3

Shankaracharya on Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, there is mention that prior to his time there existed an bigger commentary on the same work, written by ‘a highly respected person’ mentioned as Bhartriprapancha. The commentary of Bhartriprapancha did not survived until our time, and known only through quotations of Shankaracharya and his disciples Sureshvara Acharya and Anandagiri. As can be seen from those fragments, Bhartriprapancha was expounding the philosophy of bheada-abheda, advocating the existence of duality (prapancha) manifested from non-duality (abheda), which is aproximatly similar with the Doctrine of the Siddha Yogis (Siddha Siddhanta). Although there is no any direct further evidence about its author, the analysis of quotations cited by Shakaracharya and his disciples, indicates the similarity of views of Bartriprapancha with Bhartrihari; the high esteem expressed towards the author, makes it possible that the second was its actual author.

Amongst other great Siddhas related to the Natha Tradition, the personality of Bhartrihari is quite difficult to deal with. At one side, there is apparent abundance of the information about him, which could be derived from numerous recourses, but on other side, all these strings of information are full of contradictions and distortions. There is no slightest doubt that Raja Bhartrihari was an actual historical person, but the separate details of his life are quite obscured by the numerous legends and fragmentary historical evidences, which significantly vary in details. As with some other distinguished historical personalities who lived about the same time, researchers could not come to unanimous agreement about the question, either it was one person who composed all those scriptures, or they were written by few different persons having similar names. The collective amount of all works ascribed to the authorship of Bhartrihari is so enormous, the style of writing and the subjects discussed in them are so different from each other that some researchers have expressed the view that there could be as much as three different persons with the same name Bhartrihari, a poet, a grammarian and a yogi. Alternatively, in accordance with somewhat different opinion, one of them, the author of Śatakas, was the brother of the king Vikramaditya, the second was grammarian, the author of Vākyapadīya, and the third, the author of couplets in Hindi, could be the yogi disciple of Goraksh Nath.

I-Tsing The oldest written mention of the proper name Bhartrihari has appeared in

the work of the Chinese traveler to India I-Tsing1, which was composed around the end of the 7th century A.D., and which mention his demise as occurring around the middle of the same century, around the year 651 A.D. While some researchers have accepted this testimony as reliable, some have expressed their doubt about the question either historical Bhartrihari mentioned by I-Tsing and Raja Bhartrihari were the same persons or they were two different people with the same name. Because the testimony of I-Tsing could be understood better not as a 1 A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695) by I-Tsing, translated by J.Takakusu, PH.D. Oxford, 1896;

4

partial reference, but within its complete context, I have placed bellow an excerpt of the complete English translation of the original source. Its text was translated from Chinese into English by the Doctor of Philosophy J.Takakutsu in the book -‘A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695) by I-Tsing.’

Here is the account about Bhartrihari as it was narrated by I-Tsing: Next, there is the Bhartrihari Shastra. This is the commentary on the

foregoing Kurni (Mahabhashya of Patanjali or mahābhāṣya ṭīkā), and is the work of a great scholar Bhartrihari. It contains 25,000 shlokas (verses), and fully treats of the principles of human life as well as of grammatical science, and also relates the reasons of the rise and decline of many families. The author was intimately acquainted with the doctrine of 'sole knowledge' (Vidya Matra), and has skillfully discussed about the Hetu and Udaharana (the cause and example of logic). This scholar was very famous throughout the five parts of India, and his excellences were known everywhere (lit. 'to the eight quarters'). He believed deeply in the Three Jewels (i.e. Ratnat Traya), and diligently meditated on the 'twofold nothingness' (that both Atman and Dharma are but an empty show, literally Shunya). Having desired to embrace the Excellent Law he became a homeless priest, but overcome by worldly desires he returned again to the laity. In the same manner, he became a priest seven times, and seven times returned to the laity. Unless one believes well in the truth of cause and effect, one cannot act strenuously like him. He wrote the following verses, full of self-reproach:

‘Through the enticement of the world I returned to the laity. Being free from secular pleasures, I wear the priestly cloak again. How do these two impulses play with me as if a child ?’ He was a contemporary of Dharmapala (Buddhist scholar). Once when a

priest in the monastery, being harassed by worldly desires, he was disposed to return to the laity. He remained, however, firm, and asked a student to get a carriage outside the monastery. On being asked the cause, he replied: 'It is the place where one performs meritorious actions, and it is designed for the dwelling of those who keep the moral precepts (Sila). Now passion already predominates within me, and I am incapable of adhering to the Excellent Law. Such a man as myself should not intrude into an assembly of priests come here from every quarter.' Then he returned to the position of a lay devotee (Upasaka), and wearing a white garment continued to exalt and promote the true religion, being still in the monastery. It is forty years since his death (A.D. 651-652).

In addition there is the Vakya-discourse (Vakyapadiya). This contains 700 shlokas, and its commentary portion has 7,000 shlokas. This is also Bhartrihari's work, a treatise on the inference supported by the authority of the sacred teaching, and on inductive arguments.

Next there is Pei-na (probably Sanskrit ' Beda ' or 'Veda'). It contains 3,000 shlokas, and its commentary portion is in 14,000 (shlokas). The shloka portion was composed by Bhartrihari, while the commentary portion is attributed to Dharmapala, teacher of the Shastra. This book fathoms the deep secrets of

5

heaven and earth, and treats of the philosophy of man (lit. 'the essential beauty of the human principles'). A person who has studied so far as this (book), is said to have mastered grammatical science, and may be compared to one who has learnt the Nine Classics and all the other authors of China. All the above-mentioned books are studied by both priests and laymen ; if not, they cannot gain the fame of the well-informed (lit. ' much heard,' bahu-shruta, or 'knowing much of the Shruti').

How are reliable the different statements of the testimony of I-Tsing is a question. As can be seen from the quoted text above, it contains few contradictory statements about the historical Bhartrihari. It does not mention him as the author of the three poetical works of hundred verses each (shataka trayam), but rather as the author of some voluminous works on logic, philosophy and grammar. In addition, it does not mention him as a king who has renounced his kingdom, an important fact, deserving to be noticed. Moreover, Bhartrihari has been described there as the as the follower of Buddhism, while from the Sanskrit works which are traditionally recognized as being composed by him, it can be clearly seen that he was the member of an ascetic order of the followers of the Lord Shiva. He himself clearly expressed his religious affiliation in his statement in Vairāgya Śataka:

maheśvare vā jagatāmadhīśvare janārdane vā jagadantarātmani | na vastubhedapratipattirasti me tathāpi bhaktistaruṇenduśekhare ||

Vairāgya Śataka || 84 || Vairāgya Śataka 84: Between the great Lord of the universe, Shiva, and

the innermost Self of the universe, Vishnu, there is no difference for me. However, my devotion is to Shiva, holding the crescent moon on His head.

By stating that Bhartrihari was contemporary with the Buddhist scholar Dharmapala of Nalanda (530-561 A.D.), I-Tsing contradicted his own statement asserting that Bhartrihari died forty ears before (651 A.D.) I-Tsing’s travel to India. However, I-Tsing correctly ascribed to Bhartrihari the authorship of the works mentioned by him, the fact that has been conformed by modern scholars, which approximately identified all of those works.

Bhartrihari as a Historical King Through 19th and 20th century, vaious researchers have discovered

numerous evidences, which allowed them to identify correctly almost all Indian kings, along with the approximate periods of their rule. When we try to find out the actual person named Bhartrihari amongst the names mentioned by historians in the lists of the somewhat significant historical Indian Kings, the only one person who had similarly sounding name was the king Bhartṛdāman belonging to the Dynasty of Western Kshatrapas, which were the rulers of the Malva Kingdom having Ujjain as its capital. There is not much historical evidence about this king who ruled from 278 to 295 A.D., besides few coins issued in his name. He was the second of two sons of Rudrasena II, and came to the throne as secondary ruler along with his older brother Visvasimha. For the first four years of his reign, he

6

was mentioned on coins as kshatrapa, and later acquired the title ‘mahakshatrapa’, which indicates that he became the successor of the royal throne after the demise of his brother. Afterwards, he was ruling along with his son Visvasena, who also used to issue coins on his name. Besides the similarity of names, there is no any further historical evidence, which allows to identify him with the legendary king Bhartrihari, who renounced his throne.

The name of Bhartrihari However, if we enquire in the origination of the name Bhartrihari, the list

of probable candidates for the historical person with same name could be extended further. The name Bhartrihari is compound, and formed by two words, one is ‘bhartṛ’ and other is ‘hari’. The word ‘bhartṛ’can be translated from Sanskrit as a bearer, one who bears or carries or maintains, a preserver, protector, maintainer, chief, lord, a husband and master and has meaning approximately similar to the words ‘natha’ and ‘svami’. It is often mentioned by the Sanskrit scholars as identical with words bhaṭṭa or bhaṭṭi, which are derived from it. At the times of Bhartṛhari, the word Bhaṭṭa was widely used as a honorific surname, meaning ' teacher' or ‘master’, which was affixed as the first or as a second part to the names of learned Brahmins or ascetics or any high learned men generally. Bhaṭṭa is the Prakritised form of Sanskrit 'bhartṛ', which later became accepted as a separate Sanskrit word. In accordance with the Monier Williams Sanskrit dictionary, ‘bhaṭṭi’ is a name of a poet also called Bhartṛisvāmin or -hari, or Bhaṭṭa-svāmin or Svāmi-bhaṭṭa. If we assume that ‘bhartṛ’ was used as the prefix of honor or generic title added to the name Hari, which is one of names of the Lord Vishnu, then in the Indian history there were numerous persons, having similar names, some of which were the members of royal families. However, it is not much likely that Hari was the part of his royal name, and more probable that it was a part of his later ascetic name. Some researchers have expressed the view that the author of the commentary Svopajñvṛtti or Vṛtti (commentary) on Vākyapadīyam, known as Hari-vṛṣabha and Bhartrihari were the same persons. The word ‘vṛṣabha’ can be translated from Sanskrit as a bull, which is the vehicle (Nandi) of the Lord Shiva; also, it is used as the Sanskrit name of the sign of Zodiac Taurus. In such way, the name Hari Vṛṣabha or Hari Svāmi, could be the probable ascetic name of the Raja Bhartrihari. When it is used with the honorific title ‘Bhartṛ’, it is identical with the popular name Bhartṛ-hari (Bhartṛ= Svāmi).

The Brother of Vikramāditya The popular Indian tradition and the sources of the Natha Yogis

unanimously agree that Bhartrihari was a king who renounced his throne in the favor of his brother usually mentioned as Vikrama and became ascetic afterwards. At this point, the question which arises is, ‘do these claims have any historical basis, or they are baseless later elaboration?’ Besides legendary sources and theatric plays putting forth the same opinion, in the medieval Natha work known as Gorakṣa-Siddhanta-Saṁgraha (11-14th centuries), there is found a legend

7

describing the meeting of the two brothers. In accordance with it, Raja Bharrtrihri in his spiritual quest, has voluntarily accepted the kind of penance known as kapota vṛtti, which literally translated means ‘a life of a pigeon’. The ascetics who practice this kind of penance do not beg for their food, but sustain themselves on wheat grains they collect from fields or from ground. Once upon time, Raja Bhartrihari was engaged in the collection of grains of wheat somewhere in narrow lanes of the city market. When he was chewing the uncooked grains recently collected by him, his royal brother (mentioned in the text as Vikrama), who was passing by, has noticed him in this pitiable condition. At first, he did not recognized his brother (mentioned in text as jyeṣṭha, which means senior or older), who was disguised in his ascetic garb (probably patched coat made of rugs). On seeing him in such wretched state, Vikramaditya made sarcastic remark about him, ‘oho, does such a person who is incapable even to properly feed his stomach also have a mother?’ On hearing him saying so, the Siddha has answered, with the note of surprise in his voice, ‘oho, the mother of a person who is capable to feed himself, but unable to practice benevolence towards others also deserves condemnation.’ When the king of great intelligence heard his wise answer, he realized that the person to whom he abused was his senior brother (jyeṣṭha) Bhartrihari. Immediately afterwards, Vikrama stepped down from his horse and prostrated to his feet. There only, Bhartrihari has taught him a lesson about the practice of benevolence. From that moment onward, the king started practice benevolence, which took him to the height of his greatness.

The author of Gorakṣa-Siddhanta-Saṁgraha has used this story for the illustration of verse from Vairāgya Śataka quoted by him prior this story:

caṇḍālaḥ kimayaṁ dvijātirathavā śūdro'tha kiṁ tāpasaḥ kiṁ vā tattvavivekapeśalamatiyagīśvaraḥ ko'pi kim | ityutpannavikalpajalpamukharairābhāṣyamāṇā janaiḥ na kruddhāḥ pathi naiva tuṣṭamanaso yānti svayaṁ yoginaḥ || Vairāgya

Śataka || 96 || Vairāgya Śataka Verse 96: “Is this person an outcaste? or a twice-born? or

a sudra? or an ascetic? or else some master yogi with the mind filled with philosophical discernment? ‘When people address the ascetic thus, doubting and debating garrulously, the Yogis themselves walk away, neither angry nor pleased.”

As it already was mentioned before, the most legends depicting Bhartrihari’s life mention him as the king of Ujjain, who has renounced his throne in favor of his younger brother, mentioned as Raja Vikramāditya. The first written mention that Bhartrihari was the older brother of the king Vikramārka 2 has appeared in the Sanskrit work Simhāsana Dvātriṃśikā around the 12-14th centuries A.D. It is well known fact that the word ‘Vikrama’ is the shortened form of ‘Vikramāditya’. However, the compound word Vikramāditya, which means

2 Vikrama's Adventures or the Thirty-Two Tales of the Throne, edited in four different recensions of the Sanskrit Original (Vikrama Charitra or Simhāsana Dvātriṃśikā), translated into English by Franklin Edgerton, part 1, Oxford University Press, 1926. p.liii;

8

‘the Sun (aditya) of Valor (vikrama)’, traditionally was used not as a proper name, but as a title of glory (birinda), and in the Indian history, there appeared few great kings, to whose names were appended the same titles; probably there were more then twenty of them. Nevertheless, out of all of them, the King of Gupta Dynasty Chandra Gupta II, who ruled the Gupta Empire from 375 to 415 A.D. is quite distinct as the most probable candidate for the position of the legendary brother of Bhartrihari mentioned as Vikramāditya. Also, it is quite clear that most legends about Bhartrihari directly point to his name. Moreover, out of all Indian Kings, who have appended the same title to their names, he was the first one, and later kings used it because of his celebrated fame associated with it. It is also true that he has the second capital of his state situated in the city Ujjain, won by him from the Kingdom of Śakas also known as Western Kshatrapas. Prior to him, the city Ujjain was much disputed area, which was the subject of numerous conflicts between his father, Samudra Gupta and the rulers of the Śaka Empire. Chandra Gupta II finally succeeded in routing out the Śaka dominance in that area, and established the stable supremacy of the Gupta Empire in the Western India. The period of his rule has been defined by historians as the golden period of the Gupta Dynasty and as the golden period of the Indian history. The fame of this king was so great that around the eight century later kings have renamed the Kirat (Śaka) Era in his name, so that it became known to us as Vikrama Samvat (era). During years that followed the reign of Chandra Gupta II, around his already legendary name Vikrama, were wrapped even more legends; it is doubtless that the fairy tales about the legendary king Vikrama, the lord of Ujjain, depicted in works known as Vetālapañcavinśati and Simhāsana Dvātriṃśikā, were inspired by his personality. Therefore, if we assume that the claim of legends stating that Bhartrihari was an older brother of the king Vikrama is correct, then it points to conclusion that he belonged to the Gupta Dynasty. Moreover, the same assertion is backed up by the mention found in few Indian scriptures asserting that the teacher of Bhartrihari-grammarian was named Vasurata. In the work of renowned Buddhist scholar Paramārtha (499-569 A.D.), written around 535-555 A.D., it is told that the same Vasurata, who was well versed in grammar, was the brother-in-law of the King of the Gupta Dynasty Bālāditya (married to his sister). Paramārtha also has specified that the prince of his narration, mentioned as Bālāditya was the son of the king Vikramāditya. Since the same Vasurata has been mentioned as the teacher of Bhartrihari-grammarian, who was the author of Vākya-Padīya, the association of Bhartrihari with the kings of the Gupta Dynasty is quite clear. In the light of the above-mentioned facts, it could be much possible that the legendary accounts mentioning Bhartrihari as a king of the Gupta Dynasty (since he was related to Vikramāditya), who has renounced his throne, are correct. Therefore, if we accept that Bhartri-grammarian was the same person who known us as the Bhartrihari poet, we can try to figure out the probable date of his life, on the basis of this information. Since from the analysis of Śataka Traya, it is quite obvious that Bhartrihari-poet was the same person with the Bhartrihari who was a Great Siddha Yogi of a Shaiva order of ascetics, his date also would become clear.

9

However, in the official genealogy of the Gupta kings, there is neither exists any direct mention of the renunciation of Bhartrihari, nor there is found any mention of a king with such name. The absence of the name could be explained by the fact, that in accordance with the rules of the Indian ascetic traditions, to a novice adept was given a new name, different from his name prior renunciation. In this light, we can expect that the royal name of Bhartrihari was different from his ascetic name under which he has become famous later. Since most kings mentioned in the Gupta genealogy, have relatively long term of their rule, and because the details of their lives relatively well known, we cannot identify any one of them with him. Rather we have to look for an obscure king, with the short term of reign, who lived around the time of Chandra Gupta II-Vikramāditya and Narasiṃha Gupta-Bālāditya. At least, the short term of reign as an emperor is an important condition for this selection, since all legendary sources unanimously agree that Bhartrihari was not merely a person of the royal descent, but he was a king who voluntary renounced his throne. It is also true that we cannot expect to find much information about such kings. Nevertheless, the historical evidence discovered during 20th century, point to the names of few of them, who have disappeared from the scene after short term of their rule, and were not mentioned in the official genealogies of the Gupta Rulers. It was quite common amongst the Gupta kings that only the names of the direct descendants (from father to son) were mentioned in their genealogies, while the names of any intermediate rulers (such as brothers of the same father) were omitted from them. Therefore, in this context, the absence of the name of Bhartrihari, who ruled for a short period, and was succeeded by his brother, is quite logical. To find out, who amongst Gupta kings could be potentially identified with Bhartrihari, first, we have to reconstruct the approximate genealogy of the Gupta Dynasty.

According to the reading of the inscription borne by the seal of Budha Gupta, the Gupta genealogy is as follows3:

1. Maharaja Sri Gupta, the founder of the Gupta Dynasty; 2. Maharaja Sri Ghatotkacha, the son of Maharaja Sri Gupta; 3. Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta I, the son of Maharaja Sri

Ghatotkacha; 4. Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri

Chandra Gupta I and Lichchhavi-dauhitra Mahadevi Kumaradevi; 5b. Apratiratha Paramabhagavata Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II,

the son of Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta and Mahadevi Dattadevi; 6b. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta I, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri

Chandra Gupta II and Mahadevi Dhruvadevi; 7c. Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri

Kumara Gupta I and Mahadevi Anantadevi; 8b. Paramabhagavata Maharajadhiraja Sri Budha Gupta, the son of

Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi. In accordance with the seal of Vishnu Gupta, the genealogy of the Gupta

kings could be extended further as follows4: 3 The Gupta Empire by Radhakumud Mookerji, Hind Kitabs Ltd., Bombay, p. 109; 4 The Gupta Empire by Radhakumud Mookerji, Hind Kitabs Ltd., Bombay, p. 109;

10

7d. Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri

Kumara Gupta I and Mahadevi Anantadevi; 8c. Maharajadhiraja Sri Narasiṃha Gupta, Bālāditya, the son of

Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi also known as Vatsadevi;

9. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta III, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Narasimha Gupta and Mahadevi Mitradevi;

10. Maharajadhiraja Sri Vishnu Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta III and Mahadevi ?;

On the basis of information from other historical sources, the names of some obscured kings of the Gupta Dynasty would be as follows:

5a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Rama Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta and Mahadevi Dattadevi;

6a. Maharaja Sri Govinda Gupta I, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II and Mahadevi Dhruvadevi;

7a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Ghaṭotkaca Gupta, probably the son of Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta and Mahadevi Dattadevi, and the younger brother of Chandra Gupta II?;

7b. Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta III, Vikramaditya, the son of Maharajadhiraja Kumara Gupta I or Ghaṭotkaca Gupta and Mahadevi ?;

7c. Maharajadhiraja Sri Skanda Gupta, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumāra Gupta I and Mahadevi Anantadevi (?), and the younger brother of Puru Gupta;

8a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumāra Gupta II, the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi;

The genealogy of the Gupta Dynasty On the basis of the above-mentioned lists, we can try to reconstruct the

fairly accurate list of the succession of the Gupta kings5: 1. Maharaja Sri Gupta (240-290 A.D.), the founder of the Gupta Dynasty; 2. Maharaja Sri Ghatotkacha (290-305 A.D.), the son of Maharaja Sri

Gupta; 3. Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta I (305-335 A.D.), the son of

Maharaja Sri Ghatotkacha; 4. Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta, Parākramāditya (335-370 A.D.), the

son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta I and Lichchhavi-dauhitra Mahadevi Kumaradevi;

5a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Rama Gupta (370-375 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta and Mahadevi Dattadevi;

5b. Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II, Vikramāditya (375-415 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Samudra Gupta and Mahadevi Dattadevi;

5 The dates in brackets are the probable period of rule of a king; the names of few later kings following Vainya Gupta were omitted as irrelevant for this research.

11

6a. Maharaja Sri Govinda Gupta (412-415 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II (Vikramaditya) and Mahadevi Dhruvadevi;

6b. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta I, Mahendrāditya (415-455 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II and Mahadevi Dhruvadevi;

7a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Ghaṭotkaca Gupta (455 A.D.-?), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta II and Mahadevi ? the younger brother of Kumara Gupta I;

7b. Maharajadhiraja Sri Chandra Gupta III, Vikramāditya (455 A.D.-?), the son of Maharajadhiraja Kumara Gupta I or Ghaṭotkaca Gupta and Mahadevi ?;

7c. Maharajadhiraja Sri Skanda Gupta, Vikramāditya or Kramāditya (455-467 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumāra Gupta I and Mahadevi ?, and the younger brother of Puru Gupta;

7d. Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta, Vikramāditya (468-472 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta I and Mahadevi Anantadevi;

8a. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumāra Gupta II, Kramāditya (473-475 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi;

8b. Paramabhagavata Maharajadhiraja Sri Budha Gupta, Vikramāditya (476-495 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi.

8c. Maharajadhiraja Sri Narasiṃha Gupta, Bālāditya (515-530 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Puru Gupta and Mahadevi Chandradevi, also known as Vatsadevi;

9. Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta III (530-540 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Narasimha Gupta and Mahadevi Mitradevi;

10. Maharajadhiraja Sri Vishnu Gupta (540-550 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta III and Mahadevi ?;

11. Maharajadhiraja Sri Vainya Gupta, Dvadasāditya (508 A.D.), the son of Maharajadhiraja Sri Kumara Gupta III and Mahadevi ?

After analyzing the list of the Gupta kings above, few names relevant for this research could be selected. Since the names of well-documented Gupta kings, with long term of rule obviously could not be identified with Bhartrihari, they were left aside. The names of few selected kings could be divided into two groups: one of them includes two names associated with Chandra Gupta II (Vikramaditya), which are Rama Gupta (his brother) and Govinda Gupta (his son); other group includes the names of Kumāra Gupta II and Narasiṃha Gupta (Bālāditya), both were sons of the Emperor Puru Gupta (Vikramaditya).

Ramagupta was the elder son of the emperor Samudragupta and his chief queen (Mahadevi) Dattadevi, and the older brother of Chandra Gupta II, (Vikramaditya). In accordance with the evidence of the inscriptions of the Gupta Dynasty, the period of his rule comes at 370-375 A.D., so it is likely that he ruled for term not exceeding more then five ears. Chandra Gupta II (Vikramaditya) succeeded him as a king and married his wife, the queen Dhruvadevi, after his disappearance (death?). Govindagupta was the elder son of the emperor Chandra Gupta II (Vikramaditya) and his chief queen (Mahadevi) Dhruvadevi, who was crowned as a king (maharaja) when his father was still alive. After short period of his reign (412-415 A.D.) as yuvaraja (regent), side by side with Chandra Gupta

12

II, he was succeeded by his younger brother Kumaragupta I (Mahendraditya), probably without properly ascending to the throne. Kumāra Gupta II was the elder son of Puru Gupta (Vikramaditya) and his chief queen (Mahadevi) Chandradevi, and the older brother of Budha Gupta and Narasiṃha Gupta (Bālāditya). The probable period of his reign is only two-three years at most (473-475 A.D.). Because of obscurity of historical evidence around these persons, anyone of them potentially could be considered as a probable candidate to be identified with the person known to us as Raja Bhartrihari prior to his renunciation. Below is more detailed analysis of the historical evidence about these people.

Raja Ramagupta as Bhartrihari Although numerous legends were in agreement stating that raja Bhartrihari

was an older brother of the king Vikrama, until recent times this acclamation did not found any confirmation from others historical sources. The situation has changed in 1923 A.D. when Sylvain Levi published, some extracts of the Sanskrit play called Devīcandraguptam, now lost, as quoted in the Nāṭyadarpaṇa, a work on Sanskrit dramaturgy, by the two Jain writers Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra, pupils of the famous Jain teacher Hemacandrācarya 6. In the same year, R. Saraswati also found three passages of Devīcandraguptam, quoted by Bhoja in his Shringaraprakasha and Sarasvatikanthabharana. In 1924, Rakhaldas Banerjee supplemented it by the information found from a verse of the Sanjan copper plate inscription of Amoghavarsha I dated 1924 and a brief remark made by Banabhatta in his Harshacharita, which was elucidated by the commentator Shankararya.

A.S. Altekar, on the basis of the evidences from the fragments of the Devichandragupta, copper plate inscriptions of Rashtrakuta kings Amoghavarsha I and Govinda IV from Sanjan, Khambhat and Sangli, brief reference of Banabhatta, a stray verse quoted by Rajashekhara in his Kavyamimamsa and the narrative of Rawwal and Barkamaris found in a Persian text, Mujmal-ut-Tawarikh (which is a translation of an Arabic work by Abu-al Hasan Ali, which in turn is a translation of an unknown Sanskrit work), concluded that Ramagupta mentioned in the traditional accounts really existed.

The fragments of the story have mentioned the king Ramagupta as an older brother of Chandra Gupta II, and the wife of Ramagupta and then of Chandra Gupta II, Dhruvadevi. With discovery of few inscriptions attributed to Ramagupta and few cooper coins issued on his name, the existence of an older brother of Chandra Gupta II has been conformed. Historians have figured out that the probable time of his rule was around 370-375 A.D., so that complete period of his reign was not more then five years. Since the legendary sources unanimously claim that Bhartrihari was the brother of Vikramaditya, at this point, comes the natural temptation, to identify Ramagupta with Raja Bhartrihari, because both are known as the older brothers of Vikramaditya (Chandra Gupta II). However, further inquiry in the outline of the story described in Devīcandraguptam, apparently dispels this theory. Although the fragments of Devīcandraguptam not allow us to reconstruct the complete outline of the drama, since its end was lost, it 6 Raise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas, p. 153;

13

has been restored by historians on the basis of comparing it with another similar story found in the book Mojmal al-Tawarikh wa al-Qasas, written in Persia in 1126 CE by an unknown author. The title of the book means ‘The Collection of histories and Tales’. The book is written mostly as a chronicle of Persian Kings, but amongst its other stories, there is found a story titled as ‘Rawwal and Barkamaris’. The story closely follows the outline traced from the fragments of Devīcandraguptam, and the name Barkamaris is nothing else but the Persian interpretation of the name Vikrama. It is much probable that the story mentioned in it is a concise translation from Sanskrit into Persian of Devīcandraguptam. Below is the is the outline of the complete story as it appeared in book ‘The history of India: as told by its own historians7’ by Sir Henry Miers Elliot, with some adding from:

When Rasal died his eldest son, Rawwal, assumed the sovereignty. It happened that a certain king had a daughter of great intelligence. Wise and learned men had declared that the man who should marry this girl should become king of the four quarters of the world. All the kings and princes of the Hindus sought her, but no one pleased her except Barkamaris, who was very handsome. When Barkamaris brought her home his brother said, as she pleased you so does she please me. Then he took the girl with her handmaids. Barkamaris said to himself, ‘The damsel chose me for my wisdom and there is nothing better than wisdom.’ So he gave himself up to study, and associated with the learned and the Brahmins, till he reached such perfection that he had no equal. When the rebel who had expelled their father (Rasal) heard the story of the damsel, he said, ‘Can they who do such things occupy such a position?’ So he led an army and put Rawwal to flight. Rawwal with his brothers and nobles all went to the top of a mountain where a strong fortress had been built. Then they set guards on the summit and felt secure. But the enemy got possession of the mountain by stratagem, and besieged the fort, and was near upon taking it. Rawwal then sent to sue for peace, and his enemy said, ‘Give me the girl, and let every one of your chiefs send a girl. I will give these girls to my officers,—then I will withdraw.’ Rawwal was dejected, but he had a wazir, blind of both eyes, named Safar, of whom, he enquired what was to be done. He advised him to give up the women and save his life. He might then take measures against his enemy, but if he lost his life what would be the good of children and wife, and riches. They resolved upon this course, but just at this juncture, Barkamaris came in, and after making his salutation, said, ‘I and the king are sons of the same father; if he will acquaint me with his opinion, it may be that I may be able to suggest something,—do not take my youth into consideration.’ The King, his brother, informed him of the facts. He then said, ‘It seems proper that I should stake my life for your Majesty: let an order be given me to be dressed like a woman, and let all the officers dress their sons in like manner as damsels, and let us each conceal a knife in our hair, and carry a trumpet also concealed: then send us all to the hostile King. When we are brought before him, he will be told that I am the damsel; he will keep me for himself, and give the others to his officers. Finding my opportunity, I shall not fail 7 ‘The history of India: as told by its own historians’ by H. M. Elliot, (1867), London, Trübner & Co. p. 110-112;

14

to rip up his belly with the knife, and sound the trumpet. When our youths hear this, they will know that I have done my work, and they must also do theirs. All the officers of the army will thus be slain. You must be prepared, when you hear the trumpet, to sally forth with your soldiers, and we will exterminate the foe.'' Rawwal was delighted, and did as was proposed. It succeeded, and not one of the enemy's horsemen escaped.

Later on, Rama Gupta being instigated by his wazir, has made a plot to kill Barkamaris. The second became aware of the plot, and imitated madness on the spot, in order to save himself. Since then, Barkamaris was living a live of run away, and he was hiding himself under the disguise of an ascetic. The previous love existed between two brothers came to an end, and both have their own reasons to be worst enemies to each other. In the same way as Rama Gupta was looking for a chance to get rid of his main rival Barkamaris, the second was looking for a chance to put off his older brother.

One day in the hot season, Barkamaris was wandering barefoot about the city, and came to the gate of the king's palace. Meeting no hindrance he entered, and found his brother and the damsel sitting on a throne sucking sugar cane. "When Rawwal saw him he observed that there could be no porters at the gate, otherwise the poor mendicant would never have got in. Taking pity on him, he gave him a bit of sugar cane. The mendicant took it, and picked up a piece of the shell of the cane to scrape and clean it with. When the ting saw that he wanted to clean the cane, he told the damsel to give him a knife. She rose and gave the knife to Barkamaris, who cleaned the sugar cane with it, and craftily watched until the king was off his guard. Then he sprung upon him, and plunging the knife into his navel, ripped him up. After that, he seized his feet and dragged him from the throne. He next called the wazir and the people, and seated himself on the throne amid the plaudits of the people. He burnt the body of the king, took back the damsel and married her, and restored order. Then he called the wazfr and said, ‘I know that it was you who counseled my brother in his dealings with me, but this was no fault nor is it blamable. It was God's will that I should be king, so continue to govern the kingdom as you did for my brother.’ Safar replied, ‘You have spoken the truth, all that I did was for the good and advantage of your brother, not out of hostility to you. Nevertheless, I have now resolved upon burning myself, and cannot do as you desire. I was with your brother in life, and I will be with him in death.’ Barkamaris told him that he wanted him to write a book on the duties of kings, on government and justice. Safar consented, and wrote the book, which is called ‘Instruction of Kings’. I have1 transcribed it in this book, for I have written an abstract of it. When it was finished he took it to Barkamarfa and read it, and all the nobles admired and praised it. Then he burnt himself. The power of Barkamaris and his kingdom spread, until at length all India submitted to him. Such was Barkamaris. I have related all the facts just as I found them.

Notes on the above-mentioned story: Since some inscriptions mention Chandragupta II as the lawful heir on the throne, it is could be possible that his older brother Rama Gupta usurped his rights, under circumstances that Chandragupta II was too young to ascend to the throne at the time of the demise of his father. This assertion is backed up by the mention of the young age of

15

Chandragupta II, found in Devīcandraguptam. Probably at first, Rama Gupta took over as the regent on the behave of his younger brother. The facts that Rama Gupta had issued cooper coins in his name, some of which were found in the Eran-Vidisha region (Eastern Malwa), and some inscriptions found in Durjanpur near Vidisha, mentioning him as an emperor (maharajadhiraja), indicate that he has crossed the line, and was trying to establish his permanent hold on the throne. If this assumption is true, then it is quite logical that one of his priorities was to get rid from the lawful heir on the throne, his main rival, his brother Chandra Gupta II. Some facts mentioned in the story about Rama Gupta, describe him as an impotent and unjust king, and cruel brother, who was harmful for both, for his subjects and for his country, and who gradually lost popularity amongst his subjects. Out of only three inscriptions of Rama Gupta, found in Durjanpur, all were related to Jain shrines. Although they are not enough evidence to come to some definite conclusions, it could be possible that Rama Gupta discarded the traditions of his family, which was of Vaishnava orientation, and turned to Jainism. This could be one more possible reason of his wide unpopularity amongst the members of his family. On contrary, Chandragupta II, who was known as the devoted worshiper of the Lord Vishnu, and who was the lawful heir on the throne, selected by the will of his celebrated father Samudra Gupta, was much popular amongst people. Since both, the popularity and the age of Chandragupta II were steadily growing, Rama Gupta, being instigated by his minister, instead of transferring the throne to his brother, decided to get rid of him, probably a plot was made to kill him. Chandragupta II, who was very skilful in disguising himself, imitated madness and escaped unhurt, and since then was wondering around in the disguise of a mendicant. When he found favorable moment to get rid from the tyranny of his cruel brother, he used it appropriately, and regained his wife and his kingdom. As seen from the end of the story, there was no one to acknowledge the validity of his action or his right on the throne, and he was welcomed as the redeemer of people.

Some considerations in support and against of assumption that Rama Gupta was the same person with Raja Bhartrihari:

In support: All main personages of the play Devīcandraguptam mentioned as Ramagupta, Chandra Gupta II and Dhruvadevi, were conformed by independent historical evidences as real historical persons, who lived at the same period of time. The legendary sources anonymously agree that raja Bhartrihari was an older brother of Vikramaditya, who is the same person with Chandra Gupta II. In addition, some legends mention the conflict between two brothers and disdain in the kingdom, caused by the wife of Bhartrihari, during which Vikramaditya was removed from all his royal offices and banished from the palace. Devīcandraguptam also mentions deep affection existed between two brothers before their conflict. Since the complete text of Devīcandraguptam has been lost, and was rebuild on the basis Mojmal al-Tawarikh wa al-Qasas, there is still left room for the speculations about probable different end of the same story. Could be it possible that Chandra Gupta II did not kill his older brother Rama Gupta, and that later has become an ascetic? Some legends also mention the

16

killing of the oldest brother by Chandragupta II, but say that Bhartrihari was his second older brother, left by him as the regent of Ujjain.

Against: Mojmal al-Tawarikh wa al-Qasas is not sole source conforming the killing of Rama Gupta by his brother Chandragupta II, and later marriage to his wife Dhruvadevi. There few other independent resources, which conform the same sequence of events. In the Sanjm plates of the Rashtrakuta long Amoghayarsha I of A.D. 781, it is stated, ‘That donor in the Ka1i yuga, who was of Gupta lineage, having killed his brother, we are told, seized his kingdom and wife.' Therefore, if we accept the statement of Mojmal al-Tawarikh wa al-Qasas, about the death of Rama Gupta as the valid testimony, then it is obvious that he could not be the same person with Raja Bhartrihari. Even if we accept the legendary tradition stating that besides Rama Gupta, Chandragupta II has a second older brother, who ascended to the throne before him, then there is no any historical evidence proving it. In the light of above-mentioned, it is not much likely that Rama Gupta could be identified with Raja Bhartrihari, prior his renunciation.

Raja Govindagupta as Ascetic Bhartrihari Another name of an obscure king of the Gupta Dynasty, which appears as

relevant for this research, is the Maharaja Govinda Gupta. The historical evidence about him is very scarce, all that we have are few seals issued in his name, and by the persons of his administration, found in the area around Vaishali and Mandasor inscription of Dattabhata. So far, there is no single coin issued by this king was found. The probable period of his reign was identified by historians as somewhere in between 412-415 A.D. There is enough historical evidence, to accept as the fact that he was a son of Chandra Gupta II and his chief queen Dhruvadevi, mentioned in Devīcandraguptam, and the rightful heir on the throne selected by the will of his father. Although we cannot be sure, was he the younger brother of Kumara Gupta I or older. As can be seen from the seals issued by the administration of Govinda Gupta, he has ascended to the throne as yuvaraja (regent) and the king (maharaja), at the period of time when his father Chandra Gupta II was still alive8. The fact that he was officially crowned as yuvaraja, means that he was going to become the full-pledged emperor (maharajadhiraja) automatically, after the demise of his father. Also, from the details of his administration, it is quite clear that as yuvaraja, he was provided with the full royal authority, probably by doing this, his father Chandra Gupta II was trying to avoid the repeating of the same situation which occurred with him, when his rights were usurped by his brother. By analogy with the reign of Chandra Gupta II, such sequence of events points out that probably Kumaragupta I was an older brother out of two. It was quite common amongst the kings of the Gupta Dynasty that the successor to the

8 Such situation was quite common amongst Indian kings, and from fragments of the historical evidence, we can figure out that Chandra Gupta II was also crowned when his father Samudra Gupta was still alive. Moreover, some researchers have interpreted Mehroli metal pillar inscription as pointing out that Chandra Gupta II has renounced the world at the end of his life.

17

throne was selected not because he was an older son, but because he was considered as most worthy for this position.

Since no inscriptions mentioning Govinda Gupta as a full-pledged emperor (maharajadhiraja) were found, probably he never ascended to the throne properly. At this point, we can only doubt, did he give up his lawful rights willingly, or it happened as the result of a conflict with his younger brother Kumaragupta I (Mahendraditya), who is known from the records of the Gupta Dynasty as the successor of Chandra Gupta II. So far, there is was not found any historical evidence pointing out that the ascension to the throne of Kumaragupta I was much disputed or troublesome. It could be possible that Govinda Gupta died in his youth, but in the light of the Madasor stone inscription of Dattabhata, which would be discussed later, it is not much likely. Since his father Chandra Gupta II has married his mother Dhruvadevi around the year 375 A.D., after his ascend to the throne, probably Govinda Gupta was born in the years 376-380 A.D. As consequence, at the time of his ascend to the throne as yuvaraja in 412 A.D., his age could be calculated as 26-30 years old. Since his seals indicate that he was ruling side by side with his mother Dhruvadevi, he could be even younger. The age of his father Chandra Gupta II at that time could be calculated on the basis of comparing the time of ascend to the throne of Samudra Gupta (335-370 A.D.) and mentioning in Devīcandraguptam that in 370 A.D., which is the time of the ascend to the throne of Rama Gupta, Chandra Gupta II was still young. Since Chandra Gupta II was the younger brother out of two, he could be born somewhere in between the years 350-355 A.D. Therefore, at the time of establishing of Govinda Gupta as yuvaraja, which means that he was appointed as the official successor to the throne, the probable age of Chandra Gupta II could be 62-67 years old, and his demise took place when he was 65-70 years old. Also, it is clear that at the time of ascend of Govinda Gupta as yuvaraja, his mother Dhruvadevi was quite aged woman. Since Govinda Gupta was the king of the Gupta Dynasty, who after short period of reign has disappeared from his throne, he potentially could be looked on as one of persons, which could be identified with the Raja Bhartrihari prior his renunciation. Although he was not the brother of the legendary Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya, as Bhartrihari is supposed to be in accordance with legends, nevertheless, he was his son and the brother of another great king of the Gupta Dynasty Kumaragupta I. Moreover, the condition that he was ruling as regent of Western part of the Gupta Empire, side by side with Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya, was also mentioned in some legends. Therefore, the question which arises at this point, ‘do we have enough information to identify Govinda Gupta with the legendary Raja Bhartrihari or not?’ Besides the legendary claims, the only definite historical testimony about Raja Bhartrihari, which allows us closely bind him to the Gupta Dynasty, is the testimony found in the work of Paramaratha, written around 563 A.D., about the life of the Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu9. In accordance with Paramartha, in the courts of the Gupta kings Vikramaditya and his son Baladitya, who later succeeded him, there was a Brahmin named Vasurata, who was married to the 9 The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D, Toung Pao Archives Series, Vol. II, 1904.

18

daughter of a Gupta king. By analogy with other similar situations, we can conclude that such marriage relationship of Vasurata indicates that he was an important minister in the administration of some Gupta king. From some other sources, we can find out that the teacher of the Bhartrihari-grammarian was no one else, but Vasurata. The statement of Parmaratha that Vasurata was well versed in grammar, dispels all doubts about the fact that Vasurata, the teacher of Bhartrihari grammarian, and the Brahmin Vasurata of the court of the Gupta kings, were identical persons. Some other independent scholars are also belive that this assertion is true. Therefore, it is quite clear that Bhartrihari was living around the time of the Gupta kings mentioned as Baladitya, who probably was his brother, and Vikramaditya, who probably was his father. Because Baladitya of the story told by Paramartha, was a king who took the side of Buddhist Vasubandhu, who was opponent of the teacher of Bhartrihari Vasurata (see the story below), he couldn’t be identified with Bhartrihari, who was clearly Brahmanic and Shaivite, and definetly would not rise against his teacher. However, it is much probable that he and Bhartrihari were brothers of the same parents. Therefore, if we exactly figure out the names of the Gupta kings mentioned by Paramartha as Baladitya and Vikramaditya, we approximately would identify the historical king Bhartrihari, as well as the period of his life. Although most historians, have identified Bālāditya mentioned by Parmartha with the relatively well known king of the Gupta Dynasty Sri Narasiṃha Gupta, Bālāditya (515-530 A.D.), on the basis of similarity of their names, there is still some space left to doubt such judgment. In accordance with my opinion, there is more historical evidence to identify Bālāditya mentioned in the text with Kumaragupta I, then with Narasiṃha Gupta. If this assertion is correct, it means that Bhartrihari and Govinda Gupta were the same persons. At this point, first of all let us closely look at the account of Paramartha from ‘first hands’, how it is appeared in the work The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D10

Baladitya The Crown Prince, the son of the King, Vikramaditya11, was named "Ba-

la-chi-ti-ya" (Baladitya); Bala means "new" and Aditya the "sun". In former days the King (Vikramaditya) sent the Crown Prince to Vasu-bandhu to receive his instruction. The Queen too went forth from her family and became his pupil. When the Crown Prince succeeded to the throne, he and the Queen-mother invited their teacher to settle in Ayodhya12 and accept the Royal support. He accepted the

10 The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D, Toung Pao Archives Series, Vol. II, 1904, p. 288-290; 11 There is no direct mention of the name Vikramaditya in this passage, but it was mentioned before in the same text; 12 The mention of Ayodhya as the place of the residence of Vasubandhu for few decades, also was conformed by Hiuen Tsang account. In accordance with the local legendary tradition, the city Ayodha has became desolate by the time of Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya, who rediscovered its site on the basis of the legendary information and divination, and rebuild the city anew. Probably, that he selected Ayodhya, as one of his capitals, and started huge project to restore the former

19

invitation. The brother-in-law of the King, (Baladitya or Vikramaditya?), a Brahman named "Ba-shu-la-ta" (Vasu-rata), was versed in the "Bi-ka-la" treatise (Vyakarana or grammar). When Vasu-bandhu composed the Kosha, this heretic criticized by the principles of the "Bi-ka-la" treatise (Vyakarana) the construction of the words and sentences of that work. By pointing out the contradictions between Vasu-bandhu's work and the "Bi-ka-la" (Vyakarana) treatise, the heretic meant to force the author into a controversy in defense of his work, failing which, his work would be destroyed. The Teacher of the Law, (Vasu-bandhu) said, ‘If I do not understand the Bi-ka-la (Vyakarana) treatise, how can I understand the excellent truth (of Buddhism) which is extremely profound?’ Thereupon he wrote a treatise and refuted the 32 chapters of the Bi-ka-la (Vyakarana) treatise. The head and the tail of this work were broken asunder. Thus the Bi-ka-la (Vyakarana) treatise was lost, while this work is still extant. The King (Baladitya) gave him a lac (laksha) of gold and the Queen-mother two lacs (laksha). He divided the sum he received into three portions and built three temples, one each in the land of the Hero (Purusha-pura, Peshawar), in Ki-pin (Kashmira) and in A-yu-ja (Ayodhya).

The heretic (Vasurata) was angry and ashamed, and, resolving to vanquish the Buddhist teacher, sent a messenger to Tien-chu (Central India) to invite the Buddhist priest, ‘Sang-ka-ba-da-la’ (Sangha-bhadra13) to come to Ayodhya in order to compile a treatise and refute the Kosha. This teacher of the Law came and compiled two Shastras. One, entitled the ‘Samaya of Light’, contained 10,000 verses, which merely explain the doctrines of the ‘Bi-ba-sha’ (Vibhasha). 'Samaya' means ‘Groups of meanings’. The other bore the name 'Conformity to the Truth', and contained 120,000 verses. It refutes the Kosha in favor of the Vibhasha. When these treatises were completed, he invited Vasu-baundhu to meet him in person and have a decisive debate.

The latter, knowing that, in spite of his attempted refutation, his opponent had not been able after all to overthrow the doctrine of the Kosha, was not inclined to debate with him in person. He said, 'I am now already old. You may do as you please. I formerly composed the shastra to refute the doctrines of the Vibhasha. There is no need to enter further upon a decisive debate with you. You have now composed two shastras. What is the use of challenging me? Any person endowed with knowledge will himself judge which party is in the right and which is in the wrong?’

Note: The important for this research and apparently correct information derived from the text above is that the teacher of Bhartrihari Vasurata and Vasubandhu were contemporary, and have a theological dispute. Since we know that Vasurata and Bhartrihari lived at the same period of time, we can calculate the date of Bhartrihari by comparing it with the date of Vasurata. It is not improbable that Bhartrihari,Vasurata and Vasubandhu were contemporary to each

importance of the city. As can be seen from the account of Hiuen Tsang (602 – 664 A.D.), by his time the monastery where Vasubandhu was living, was in ruined state. 13 The somewhat different and more elaborated version of the same dispute was described by Hiuen Tsang in his book Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 193-196;

20

other, but if we identify Vikramaditya of the story with Chandra Gupta II, and Baladitya with Narsimha Gupta, then it is clear that they could not live at the same period of time. Therefore, one of these two names should be considered a mistake of Paramartha, which should be corrected. As consequence of these, we can derive from the narration of Paramartha two probable chronological strings, binding Bhartrihari to the Gupta Dynasty: the first is Bhartrihari-Vasurata-Vasubandhu-Vikramaditya and the second is Bhartrihari-Vasurata-Vasubandhu-Baladitya, each pointing to the different period of time. The historians approximately identified the period of rule of Chandra Gupta II as from 375 to 415 A.D. and the period of reign of Narsimha Gupta as around 515 to 530 A.D. In the narration of Paramartha, Vasurata was mentioned as the brother in law of the king, without mentioning the king’s name. At this point, some historians have decided that the king mentioned there was Narsimha Gupta-Baladitya, because his name was mentioned right before the same sentence. However, the name of Vikramaditya was also mentioned in the same narration as the name of a king, the father of Baladitya. As it was told before, Vasurata could not be contemporary with both of these kings, since between them there is the time gap around one hundred years. Therefore, to find out the period of life Vasurata, out of them, we have to select only one king, and put aside another. After the date of Vasurata would be clear, the approximate date of Bhartrihari would appear automatically. Since Vasurata known to us as the teacher of Bhartrihari grammarian, it is much likely that he must be somewhat older then his disciple. Therefore, it is more probable that he was married not to the sister of the king Baladitya, but to the sister of his father Vikramaditya. Even if this assumption is not true, it is not much changes the matter, but definitely he mast be somewhat older then Bhartrihari. Along with the names of the two Gupta kings, the mention of Vasubandhu, as contemporary with Vasurata, the teacher of the prince Bhartihari, is also much helpful in finding out the period of time when Bhartrihari was living.

The reliability of the account of Paramartha was questioned even by Hsuan Tsang, who visited India shortly after him, and who clarified some geographical and timely mistakes in it. Such situation demonstrates that Paramartha (499-569 A.D.) was living not immediately after Vasubandhu, but probably little bit more then one hundred years after him. However, we cannot allow here the gap of more then one hundred fifty years, since the period of life of Paramartha could be easily calculated on the basis of comparing it with the life of Chinese Emperor Wu of Liang (464–549 A.D.), which is relatively well documented, and with whom Paramārtha meet around the year 546 A.D. Therefore, in this light, nothing is wrong in assuming that Vasubandhu could be contemporary with Chandra Gupta II (350–415 A.D.), who lived one hundred fifty years prior Paramartha (499-569 A.D.), and with both his sons known to us. Even in the quotation from Paramārtha’s account, the reference to the king Vikramaditya could be seen clearly. However, most historians have chosen to ignore the name Vikramaditya, considering it a mistake of Paramartha, in favor of the name of Narsimha Gupta-Bālāditya, who was famous for his Buddhist affiliation. In accordance with this theory, the king mentioned as Vikramaditya, could be identified as the father of Narsimha Gupta Bālāditya, Puru Gupta, who

21

probably also used the same title ‘Vikrama’. However, some other facts mentioned in the account of Paramartha, and some other sources, point to conclusion that the king of his narration, mentioned as Bālāditya, by no means could be identified with the emperor Narsimha Gupta. Moreover, on the basis of comparing the period of rule of Narsimha Gupta with the period of life of Paramārtha, they appear as rather contemporary to each other; probably the second was well aware about the existence of the first. On contrary, there is certain evidence pointing out that the king mentioned as Vikramaditya was no one else, but Chandra Gupta II, the father of Govinda Gupta and Kumara Gupta I. Therefore, it is more likely that Bālāditya mentioned in the story, could be identified with the brother of Govinda Gupta, Kumara Gupta I, who was the son of Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya. The fact that Kumara Gupta I has an obscure brother, who disappeared after short period of reign, also an evidence that Govinda Gupta can be looked on as the probable Bhartrihari, prior to his renunciation. Further on, as it is testified in the account of Huan Tsang, Bālāditya (Narasiṃha Gupta) has renounced his throne, and has became a Buddnist monk in Nalanda14. Since he defiantly could not be identified with Bhartrihari, known for his firm Brahmanic affiliation15, the questions that arises, how much is it possible that two Gupta kings, which were brothers, have renounced the throne around the same period of time? It is difficult to say why Paramārtha used the name Bālāditya16 in his narration, one of probable explanations is that it could be a childish name of Kumara Gupta I. The title Bāla-āditya, which could be translated in English as ‘newly risen sun’ or ‘morning sun’ is very uncommon amongst the Gupta rulers, since it reflects the Sun in its ‘not full-grown weakened’ state. The titles of the Gupta kings traditionally were associated rather with ‘the Sun in its full Power’, then with ‘the immature raising Sun’. As it can be traced from the account of the Chinese Buddhist monk Hiuen Tsang (602 – 664 A.D.), the only king of the Gupta Dynasty titled Bālāditya, who was contemporary with the Huna king Mahirakula, was ‘a mother’s darling’, who was blindly following the guidance of his mother, even in very important matters of the state17. Thus, it was under the instigation of his mother that he pardoned the bloody tyrant Mahirakula18, who used his freedom, to kill hundreds thousands of people, and destroyed thousands of Buddhist temples and monasteries in the Buddhist

14 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 2, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 169; 15 In the grammatical and poetical works of Bhartirihari has not appeared any statement allowing to identify him as a Buddhist monk. On contrary, his affilation with Shaivism and Brahmanism clearly could be seen; 16 In accordance with Russian scholar Wassilief, who has translated the same account, the name of the same prince was Prāditya; 17 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 170-171; 18 ‘Mihirakula was as cruel as Death. Day and night were men murdered by his orders, even in places of his amusement; he relented not even towards boys or women, nor considered the aged; -and his presence and that of his army, were known by the assemblage of crows and vultures that feasted on the dead.’ Quoted from ‘Kings of Kashmira’, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 18-19;

22

kingdom Gandhara19. Could it be possible that Bālāditya has renounced his throne in the search of forgiveness for the mistake he has made? The total dominance of the mother of Narasiṃha Gupta, Mahadevi Chandradevi, over her son, could be traced also from the fact that she was titled in some inscriptions as ‘Vatsadevi’ or ‘the mother of her son’. Such situation could explain why Narasiṃha Gupta retained this rather ‘childish’ name even in his mature age. Alternatively, from some other perspective, the correct name mentioned by Paramārtha could be rather Bala-āditya, which being translated from Sanskrit means ‘the Sun of Power’, and has close similarity with the titles of Skanda Gupta-‘Krama-āditya’ and Chandra Gupta II-‘Vikrama-āditya’, which have the same meaning. Paramārtha simply could confuse the titles of Skanda Gupta-Kramāditya and Kumara Gupta I-Mahendrāditya, since both these kings were quite distant from him, and both of them were reigning shortly one after another. However, he correctly pointed at the name of Chandra Gupta II -Vikramāditya, which was far more renowned to be easily forgotten, as the name of the king-father. More over, in the account of Hiuan Tsang (602 – 664 A.D.), the king Vikramaditya was mentioned as contemporary with Vasubandhu, but the name of his son was omitted20. Although Hiuan Tsang has been separated from the time of reign of Balāditya by the period of time, which was around one hundred fifty years, he stayed at the Nalanda Univercity nearly for three years, and was well informed about some episodes of his life. It was Hiuan Tsang, who has given accounts about the renunciation of Balāditya and about his encounter with the Huna king Mihirakula. In this light, his ignoring of the important connection of Narasiṃha Gupta-Balāditya with Vasubandhu, appears rather as strange. Moreover, Hiuan Tsang have conformed the reference of Paramartha to the city Ayodhya21, it in the monastery situated there, he told, that Vasubanhu, ‘during a sojourn of several decades of years, composed various Shastras, both of the Great and Little Vehicle. By the side of it are some ruined foundation walls; this was the hall in which Vasubandhu Bodhisattva explained the principles of religion and preached for the benefit of kings of different countries, eminent men of the world, Shramans and Brahmins’22. However, Hiuen Tsang never mentioned Balāditya as related to to Ayodhya in his account. Another important reference derived from the account of Hiuen Tsang, is that at the time of Balāditya, the same king Huna Mihirakula, who was intolerant to Buddhists, has made the city Shakala his capital, but in ‘older days’, Vasubandhu has composed there one of his works, 19 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 172; 20 He has been described by Hiuen Tsang as ‘a monarch who widely patronized those distinguished for literary merit’. In another place of the account of Hiuen Tsang, Kumara Gupta I was correctly mentioned as the former king of the country, Śakrāditya, who inaugurated the construction of the Nalanda Univercity; 21 Some historians doubt that the city Ayodhya, mentioned by Paramartha and Vasubandhu is identical with the modern city Ayodhya, situated in Uttar Pradesh state. Therefore, it could be a mistake of translation, but nevertheless, the important fact here is that this city was ‘the capital of Vikramditya’. In accordance with the popular belief existing in the modern Ayodhya, it was the king Vikramditya, who has discovered the site where the legendary Indian king Rama was born, and rebuilt there the Ayodhya city; 22 In the account of Hiuen Tsang, vol 1.,p 225.

23

‘Paramarthasatya Shastra’23. In another passage, Hiuen Tsang says that when Sanghabadra send ‘three or four of the most distinguished of his disciples’ to find Vasubandhu, ‘he was in the country of Cheka, in the town of Shakala, his fame being spread far and wide’24. From these statements, it is quite obvious that Vasubandhu could not stay in the same city at the same time with Mihirakula.

At the time of Narsimha Gupta, the Gupta Empire has lost its stability and regional dominance in the Western India, and was constrained to its Eastern parts, therefore in some accounts he is known as ‘Easterner’ or ‘the King of Magadha25’. It is could be possible that after the reign of father of Narsimha Gupta, Puru Gupta (468-472 A.D.), the Gupta Empire was divided into two parts, Western and Eastern, which were ruled by two of his sons, or may be not. Nevertheless, after the battle of Eran, which took place around the year 510 A.D., the Western part of the Gupta Empire fail to the invasion of the huna king Toramana, who established himself as an undisputed Ruler of India for a period of time. The Huna kings were not much worried about the stability of the areas of their conquest; all they were wanting was loot and annual extortions from the conquered kingdoms. There was no power capable to resist the assault of Hunas at that time, and the contemporary Indian kings were forced to accept their supremacy. In accordance with Hiuen Tsang account26, at the time of the successor of Toramana, his son Mahirkula, Narsimha Gupta- Bālāditya was already subjected to him, and was obligated to pay him tribute.27 In accordance with the account of the Christian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, who visited India around the same period of time, ‘Higher up in India, that is, farther to the north, are the White Huns. The one called Gollas when going to war takes with him, it is said, no fewer than two thousand elephants, and a great force of cavalry. He is the lord of India, and oppressing the people forces them to pay tribute.’ In accordance with the account of Kahlana28, there was no power in India, at that time, capable to contradict the military dominance of Mahirkula. Even the emperor Bālāditya, after his rebellion against Mahirakula was unable to face his army in an open combat, so he has to retire to the delta of Ganga River, to the bank of the Bengal Bay.

However, from the account of Paramārtha, we can clearly see that at the time of the events described by him, the Gupta Empire was still at its peak, and the country still was having its stable rule. Moreover, in the works of Bhartrihari there is no found mention of any great disruptions in the country, at the time of his life. And who would bother about grammar and poetry, when the rivers of blood were flowing all over the country? On contrary, the time of reign of

23 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 172; 24 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 193; 25 In the account of Hiuen Tsang, vol. 1, p. 168; 26 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 168-171; 27 Cosmas Indicopleustes, ‘Christian Topography’, Book 11, 1897, pp. 370-371. 28 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, vol. 1, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 19;

24

Chandra Gupta II, and his son Kumara Gupta I, who succeeded him, is recognized as very inspirational period for scientists, scholars and poets. Therefore, it is not likely that Bhartrihari was contemporary with Narasimha Gupta-Bālāditya, but more probable, with Kumara Gupta I, at the time of whose ascend to the throne, the Gupta Empire was still in its power. In addition, in the same account of Paramārtha, there is found a mention pointing out that at the money received from the king Bālāditya and his mother, Vasubandhu has built temples in Peshavar and Kashmir, which could not be possible at the time of Narasiṃha Gupta. By the time of the second, those areas were under the dominion of the Huna kings, which were notorious for their hostility towards Buddhism, and were accustomed not to build temples, but to rob and destroy them. Some researches advocate the point of view that because Narasiṃha Gupta was famous for his Buddhist inclination amongst other Gupta kings, it was he, who has been converted to Buddhism by Vasubandhu. However, in accordance with the account of Hiuen Tsang, conformed by the discovery of seals of the Gupta kings in Nalanda, it was Kumara Gupta I, mentioned by him as Śakrāditya29, who inaugurated the construction of the Nalanda University. Although at the Nalanda University were studied wide range of subjects, which were including Vedas and Brahmanical philosophy, nevertheless, this University was famous for its specialization in generally Buddhist studies, and Yogachara in particular. Since some accounts mention Vasubandhu as closely related to Nalanda, it is could be possible that Kumara Gupta I has started the construction of the University under his direct influence. If we accept that the assertion of Paramartha, which states that Baladitya was send to sturdy under Vasubandhu is correct, and that Baladitya of his account was no one else, but Kumara Gupta I, then it is not impossible. In accordance with the exited account of Paramārtha about Vasubandhu, ‘the sense conveyed in his compositions is fine and excellent; there is no one who, on hearing or seeing it, does not believe and pursue it. Therefore, all those who study the Mahayana and Hinayana in India and in all the frontier countries use the works of Vasubandhu as their textbooks. There are no teachers of any other schools (of Buddhism) or the heretical sects who, on hearing his name, will not become quite nervous and timid.’ Even if Kumara Gupta I was not converted into Buddhism in true sense, it is quite probable that he developed much sympathy towards it, as the result of his intercourse with Vasubandhu. In accordance with the account of Hiuan Tsang, ‘not long after the Nirvana of Buddha, a former king of the country Śakrāditya (Shi-lia-lo-o-tie-to) respected and esteemed the One Vehicle, and honored very highly the Three Treasures. Having selected by augury a lucky spot, he built this sangharama (Nalanda)’30. On the other hand, may be he did so because of his personal sympathy to Vasubandhu or in his memory?

From the works of Bhartrihari it could be seen clearly that he determinately preferred to retain his Brahmanic affiliation, and his allegation to his teacher Vasurata. Moreover, his work Vakyapadya, could be considered as an

29 The title Śakrāditya is obviously synonymous with the well known title of Kumara Gupta I Mahendrāditya; 30 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 2, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 168;

25

attempt to preserve the essence of the work of his teacher, which in accordance with the account of Paramartha, was destroyed after his defeat by Vasubandhu. The fact that the brother of Bhartrihari, mentioned as Baladitya, along with his mother, took the side of Vasubandhu, could be the possible reason causing much disappointment of Bhartrihari. As matter of fact, taking the side of Buddhist Vasubandhu was a serious heresy against the traditions of the Gupta family, famous for it Brahmanic affiliation. Another Chinese traveler to India, the Buddhist monk Hiuen Tsang (602 – 664 A.D.) has given somewhat different account31 about the encounter of Vasurata and Vasubandhu, although without mentioning the name of the first. Although Vasurata was not mentioned by him directly, we can figure out his presence, by the fact that the teacher of Vasubandhu Manorhita, was defeated in debate on the basis of the grammatical flows in his argumentation. It was the same method, which Vasurata was trying to use later against Vasubandhu. Although the account below is much prejudged, nevertheless it gives some important details of the encounter of Manorhita with Vasurata, and then of Vasubandhu with Vasurata:

The king Vikramaditya32 summoned an assembly of different religious persons whose talents were most noted, to the number of one hundred, and issued the following decree: 'I wish to put a check to the various opinions (wanderings) and to settle the true limits (of inquiry); the opinions of 'different religious sects are so various that the mind knows not what to believe. Exert your utmost ability, therefore, to-day in following out my directions.' On meetings for discussion he made a second decree: 'The doctors of law belonging to the heretics are distinguished for their ability. The Shamans and the followers of the law (of Buddha) ought to look well to the principles of their sect; if they prevail, then they will bring reverence to the law of Buddha; but if they fail, then they shall be exterminated33. On this, Manorhita questioned the heretics and silenced ninety-nine of them. And now, a man was placed (sat on the mat to dispute with him) of no ability whatever34, and for the sake of a trifling discussion (Manorhita) proposed the subject of fire and smoke. On this the king and the heretics cried out, saying, 'Manorhita, the doctor of Sastras, has lost the sense of right connection (mistaken the order or sense of the phrase); he should have named smoke first and fire afterwards: this order of things is constant.' Manorhita wishing to explain the difficulty, was not allowed a hearing; on which, ashamed to see himself thus treated by the people, he bit out his tongue and wrote a warning to his disciple Vasubandhu, saying, ‘In the multitude of partisans there is no justice; among persons deceived there is no discernment.’ Having written this, he died.

A little afterwards Vikramaditya-raja lost his kingdom35 and was succeeded by a monarch who widely patronized those distinguished for literary

31 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 105-109; 32 Probable Chandra Gupta II; 33 Since in the reign of the Gupta kings all religions were tolerated, this rather could means that the Buddhist doctrine would be considered as defeated; 34 Probable Vasurata; 35 Probably he died;

26

merit36. Vasubandhu, wishing to wash out the former disgrace (of his teacher), came to the king and said, 'Maharaja, by your sacred qualities you rule the empire and govern with wisdom. My old master, Manorhita, was deeply versed in the mysterious doctrine. The former king, from an old resentment37, deprived him of his high renown. I now wish to avenge the injury done to my master.' The king, knowing that Manorhita was a man of superior intelligence, approved of the noble project of Vasubandhu; he summoned the heretics who had discussed with Manorhita. Vasubandhu having exhibited afresh the former conclusions of his master, the heretics were abashed and retired38.’

Some historians believe that Vasubandhu was appointed as a minister of some Gupta king, probably as the consequence of this encounter. The statement that ‘the heretics were retired’, could mean in this contexts that Vasurata, who was loyal to Brahmanism, has lost his high post, he enjoyed in the Vikramaditya administration. By such turnover, the small coup within the Gupta Dynasty has actually taken place: those who were considered as heretics before, have came in power; and those who were in power, have degraded to the status of heretics. It could be possible that Kumara Gupta I simply used the situation to get rid from the aged Vasurata, which was one of the key people in the court of his father. From the assumption that Vasurata was married to the sister of Vikramaditya39, we can come to conclusion that he was quite influential even after the demise of Chandra Gupta II, so it could be possible that he was trying to use his authority against some decisions of Kumara Gupta I. While Govinda Gupta, who was in his complete control, has renounced the kingdom, his successor apparently was not ready to follow his orders. It is quite common even nowadays that new governors after coming in power, first of all, try to change their cabinet, and place the people personally loyal to them on all important positions. The statement in the account of Paramaratha, also points out that the king mentioned as Baladitya (probable Kumara Gupta I), was send by his father to sturdy under Vasubandhu, who was one of most distinguished contemporary scholars. Therefore, the prejudgment of Kumara Gupta I, towards his teacher Vasubandhu, appears as quite natural in these circumstances, as well as the prejudgment of Chandra Gupta II and Govinda Gupta (Bhartrihari) towards their favorite Vasurata. At this point, the natural question which arises, how it could be possible that Chandra Gupta II, who was devoted follower of Vaishnavism, has send his son to sturdy under Buddhist Vasubandhu? The probable solution of this question apparently could be traced

36 It is obviously that the name of the king was forgotten by the time of Hiuen Tsang, therefore it could be rather Kumara Gupta I, then Narsimha Gupta, who was mentioned in the same work as Bālāditya, in few places. By stating that the new monarch widely patronized ‘those distinguished for literary merit’, Hiuen Tsang clearly demonstrated his prejudgment towards Buddhism. From numerous other accounts, it is quite well known that Chandra Gupta II was widely patronizing sciences and literature, but defiantly he was more inclined towards Brahmanism then Buddhism. 37 In accordance with the account of Hiuen Tsang, Vikramaditya was angry on Manorhita because the second once paid one lakh of gold to barber for shaving his head; 38 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 108-109; 39 In this context, if we accept that he was married to the sister of Kumara Gupta I, the second must be more disposed towards him;

27

from the same book of Paramartha. In another place of Paramrtha’s account about Vasubandhu, there is found mention of the encounter of Vasubandhu with the Sanhkya philosopher Vindhyavasin, which taken place prior the debate of Vasubandhu with Vasurata. The place of that encounter has been defined by Paramartha as the same court of the king Vikramaditya, in the same city Ayodhya. In accordance with Parmartha, Vindhyavasin has learned the Sankhya Philosophy under the Lord of snakes Shesha Naga. Bellow is the partial quotation of Paramartha account about this incident:

‘The pupil having obtained the Shastra became very proud and thought that the doctrine set forth by himself was the greatest, and that nothing could be superior to it. There was, however, the Law of Sakyamuni, which at that time was greatly flourishing in the world, and all people regarded it as the great Law. He resolved therefore to refute it. Accordingly he went to the country of A-yu-ja (Ayodhya) and beat the drum of dispute40 with his head and said: ‘I will dispute with any Buddhist Shramana. If I am defeated my opponent shall cut my head off; but if, on the contrary, he is beaten, he shall give me his head’. The King, Pi-ka-la-ma-a-chi-ta (Vikramaditya), which, being interpreted, means the ‘Right-effort-sun’, being informed about the matter, summoned the heretic and asked him about it, whereupon the latter answered: ‘You are, O King, the Lord of the Land, in whose mind there should be no partial love for either Shramanas or Brahmins. If there are any doctrines prevailing (in your country) you should put them to the test (and see whether) they are right or wrong. Now, I intend (to dispute) with a disciple of Shakya-muni to determine which party is the winner or the loser. Each should vow to stake his own head’. The King thereupon gave him permission and dispatched men to ask all the Buddhist teachers of the country in the following words: ‘Is there anyone who is able to oppose this heretic? Whosoever thinks himself competent should dispute with him’ .

At that time the great Teachers of the Law, Ma-nu-la-ta (Manoratha), Ba-su-ban-du (Vasu-bandhu), and others, were all absent traveling in other countries. Ma-nu-la-ta (Manoratha) means ‘Mind-desire’. There was at home only But-da-mi-ta-la (Buddha-mitra), the teacher of Vasu-bandhu. But-da-mi-ta-la (Buddha-mitra) means the 'Friend of the Enlightened'. This Teacher of the Law was formerly very learned, but he was now advanced in years and therefore weak in mind and feeble in his speech.’41

In accordance with Paramartha, in the dispute that followed, Vindhyavasin was able easily defeat Buddha-mitra, although he did not killed him, but beat him on his back instead. After that Vindhyavasin was rewarded by the king with three lacs (laksha) of gold as a prize. On receiving the gold he distributed it among the people at large and returned to the Bin-ja-ka (Vindhya) Mountain where he entered a rocky cave. Ba-su-ban-du (Vasu-bandhu) came home afterwards, and on

40 ‘It was customary for a king in India’ a commentator says, 'to keep a drum at the Royal Gate. When a man wanted to appeal to the Court or to challenge a dispute, he has to beat it'. 41 The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D, Toung Pao Archives Series, Vol. II, 1904, p. 283;

28

hearing of the incident was vexed and angry. He was trying to find out Vindhyavasin, but later was already dead by that time.42

‘Thereupon he composed a Shastra entitled the 'Truth-Seventy', in which he refuted the 'Seng-ch'ia-lun' (Samkhya-shastra) composed by that heretic, whose doctrine fell to pieces like the broken tiles, from the beginning to the end, leaving no sentence which could hold together. All the heretics grieved as though it were their own life that was thus destroyed, for although he (Vasu-bandhu) did not encounter his opponent, the latter's sit-tan (doctrine, siddhanta) was so discredited in all its branches that there was nothing left for them to fall back upon. Thus he took full vengeance (on his enemy) and wiped off the disgrace put (upon his teacher).’ Everyone was gratified on hearing the news. The King (Vikramaditya) gave him three lacs (laksha) of gold as a prize. This amount he divided into three portions with which he built three monasteries in the country of A-yu-ja (Ayodhya):

1. A monastery for pi-ku-ni (Bhikshuni). 2. A monastery for the Sat-ba-ta (Sarvasti-vada) school43. 3. A monastery for the Maha-yana school.44

A can be seen from the quotation above, Vasubandhu was highly praised by the king Vikramaditya for his remarkable intellectual abilities, even before his dispute with Vasurata. In addition, Vikramaditya of the Paramartha narration, has been shown here as the liberal king, who was equally disposed towards various religious believes.

In accordance with the account of Fa-Hien (337–424 A.D.), who has wisited India at the time of the reign of Chandra Gupta II, “In this Middle Kingdom there are ninety-six sorts of views, erroneous and different from our system, all of which recognize this world and the future world (and the connection between them). Each had its multitude of followers, and they all beg their food: only they do not carry the alms-bowl. They also, moreover, seek (to acquire) the blessing (of good deeds) on unfrequented ways, setting up on the road-side houses of charity, where rooms, couches, beds, and food and drink are supplied to travelers, and also to monks, coming and going as guests, the only difference being in the time (for which those parties remain).”

Therefore, it is not impossible that he could send his son Kumara Gupta I to learn under Vasubandhu, who was very remarkable scholar of his time, to be ignored. It could be possible that Bhartrihari as Govinda Gupta also has studied under Vasubandhu for some time. In accordance with ‘the Treatise on the Art of Debate’ of Maytreya, written about the same time, an aspirant to be qualified as a debater ‘must be versed in each other’s scriptures’45. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, we can assume that Vasubandhu, who was recognized as undefeated champion in the debates of his age, was well acquainted not only with 42 The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D, Toung Pao Archives Series, Vol. II, 1904, p. 284-285; 43 This could be the monastery built by Vasubandhu for himself in Ayodhya; 44 The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499-569), translated by J. Takakusu, M.A. Ph. D, Toung Pao Archives Series, Vol. II, 1904, p. 286; 45 Nyāyaśāstrasya Itihāsahaḥ by Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1920, p. 264;

29

all aspects of the Buddhist Philosophy, but with all other philosophical traditions, as well. One more important mention in the quotation above, is that Vasubandhu has used the money obtained by him from Vikramaditya, for the construction of three Buddhist monasteries. I would not say here that one of those monasteries could be Nalanda University, however the disposition of Vasubandhu towards construction of monasteries, could be clearly seen from this information. It is could be possible that Vasubandhu has built a monastery for himself in the close proximity of Ayodhya, where he could be easily approached by the king.

Besides the chronological references of Paramartha to Vikramaditya and Baladitya, as contemporary with Vasurata, and consequently with Bhartrihari, one more important reference found in the account of Paramaratha is to Vasubandhu. While the period of the reign of Kumara Gupta I has been defined by historians relatively precisely, the exact date of the Vasubandu’s life is far more disputed amongst scholars, to directly place both at the same period of time. Various researches have proposed different dates of the life of Vasubandhu, although the period of his life usually defined as not early then 4th century, and not later then 6th century, somewhat between 350 and 550 A.D. The date prior to 350 A.D. is considered by historians as too yearly, and above 550 A.D. considered as too late, on the basis of comparing them with the references to some contemporary with Vasubandhu scholars. However, for the present research, the gape of two hundred years is too big, to make some definite conclusions. This gape could be made narrow to one hundred years, if we accept as true the statements of Paramarta that Vasubandha was contemporary either with the king Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya (375-415 A.D.) or with Narsimha Gupta-Baladitya (515-530 A.D.). In accordance with the account of Paramartha, Vasubandhu lived long, and died at the age of 80 years in Ayodhya. In addition, Paramartha has told that at the time of Vikramaditya, he already was famous scholar, and in accordance with the account of Hiuen Tsang, he stayed in Ayodhya for few decades under his son Baladitya. Therefore, on the basis of this information, we can roughly define the probable period of the life of Vasubandhu as between 355 to 435 A.D. (as contemporary with Vikramaditya) and as between 465 to 545 A.D. (as contemporary with Baladitya). Some historians have purposed an intermediate date between these two terms, and placed Vasubandhu as living around 400-480 A.D. However, such calculation makes it impossible for him to be contemporary with either Vikramaditya or Baladitya. We can clearly see that if accept this date as reliable, then at the time of Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya (375-415 A.D.), he was too young (fifteen years old) to have debates in his court, and the supposed time of the reign of Baladitya (515-530 A.D.), as well, is beyond of this period. Some historians advocate even much earlier date of the life of Vasubandhu, which is 320-400 A.D., and which places him at the period of reign of the emperors Samudra Gupta (335-370 A.D.) and Chandra Gupta II (375-415 A.D.). If we accept this as true, then again he could not be contemporary with either Kumara Gupta I or Baladitya.

Usually the date of Vasubandhu is calculated on the basis of its distance from the date of Nirvana of Buddha mentioned by Paramartha or on the basis of comparing it with the dates of few persons mentioned in various sources as

30

contemporary with him. In accordance with my opinion, the first time line is too vague to be considered as precisely accurate, because it is gives the period passed from the demise of Buddha to the life of Vasubandhu as around one thousand years, and because even the date of the Nirvana of Buddha is still disputed amongst scholars. However, besides Vikramaditya and Baladitya, mentioned in the Paramartha’s narration, there exist few more persons contemporary with Vasubandhu, or closely preceding or following him, existence of which can be traced from some other sources. From the account of Paramartha, we learn that Asaṅga, Manoratha and Sanghabadra were living at the same time with Vasubandhu. These mentions are generally conformed by other accounts, although some of them vary by mentioning Manoratha as either the teacher or disciple of Vasubandhu. In accordance with the account of I-Tsing, about the great Buddhist Pandits, ‘such were Nāgārjuna, Deva (Āryadeva), Ashvaghosha of an early age; Vasubandhu, Asaṅga, Sangabhadra, Bhavaviveka (500–578 A.D.) in the middle ages; and Jina, Dharmapala (530-561 A.D.), Dharmakīrti, Silabhadra (529-645 A.D.), Simhakandra, Sthiramati (470-550 A.D., the probable disciple of Dignāga), Gunamati (420-500 A.D.), Pragnagupta (not 'Matipala'), Guṇaprabha, Ginaprabha (or ' Paramaprabha') of late years'46. Asaṅga is considered as an older brother of Vasubandhu, although some sources state that they were children of the same mother, but of different fathers. In accordance with Paramartha and other accounts, it was Asaṅga who converted Vasubandhu in the doctrine of Yogācāra, so that later has became one of its most prominent exponents. It is true that amongst other remarkable scholars of Yogācāra, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu stand aside, as the most famous and as the path makers. It is widely believed that the Buddhist monk Dignāga (400-480 A.D.) was the disciple of Vasubandhu. The Buddhist monk Gunamati (420-500 A.D.) has wrote a commentary on the Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu, titled Lakṣaṇāanusāraśāstra. He was mentioned by Hsi-yu-chi as one of the celebrated monks of Nalanda, who after some time staying there, moved to Valabhi47.The Buddhist monks Fa-Hien, Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.), Kumārajīva (334–413 A.D.), Dharmakṣema ( 385–433 A.D.) and Buddhabadra (359-429 A.D.) are considered as nearly contemporary with Chandra Gupta II and probably closely preceding Vasubandhu.

Two Vasubandhu On the basis of the analysis of the various works attributed to

Vasubandhu, some historians came to conclusion that they could not be written by one person, because there were numerous contradictions amongst them. Therefore, they purposed a theory that there was not one Vasubandhu, but at least two or even three of them. However, quite recently, some researchers apparently have conformed the fact that Sarvāstivādin Vasubandhu, who was the author of

46 A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695) by I-Tsing, translated by J.Takakusu, PH.D. Oxford, 1896, p. 181; 47 Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu, Volume I, Translated into French by Louis de La Vallee Poussin, English Version by Leo M. Pruden, Asian Humanities Press, 1988-90, p. 10;

31

work Abhidharma-kośa, was the same person as Mahāyāna Yogācāra scholar-monk Vasubandhu. The conformation of this fact was discovered in the work titled Abhidharma Dīpa, which along with critics of Abhidharma-kośa of Vasubandhu, also points out that both Vasubandhu were one person. Abhidharma Dīpa is Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma text of uncertain authorship, which was discovered by Pandit Rahula Sankrityana in the Shalu monastery of Tibet, in the year 193748. At this point, I prefer to avoid entering into too much details, but instead center around Vasubandhu, who was the author of Abhidharma Kosha, contemporary with Vikramaditya of Ayodhya, as it was mentioned in the accounts of Paramartha and Hiuen Tsang.

The Pandits of Nalanda As it already has been mentioned before, it was Kumara Gupta I, who has

started the construction of the Nalanda University. In accordance with my personal opinion, Nalanda was built closely after the demise of Vasubandhu or probably in his life time, but he never stayed in this University. The accounts of Paramartha and Hiuen Tsang state that Vasubandhu was born in Gangadhara, and at various periods of his life stayed in Gangadhara, Kashmir, Kosambi and Ayodhya, but both silent about his staying at Nalanda. It was in Ayodhya, which was then still under the patronage of the Gupta king, mentioned by Paramartha as Baladitya, where he spent the last few decades of his life, and died at the age of 80 years. In the account of Paramartha about the life of Vasubandhu, there is not found a single mention of Nalanda at all. In addition, Hiuen Tsang, who spent in Nalanda tree years of his life, and was quite well informed about the history of the University, did not mentioned the name of Vasubandhu as related to its construction. In this light, it quite probable that the construction of the Nalanda University was started at the lifetime of Vasubandhu, but he did not participated in it. In accordance with the account of the Chinese Buddhist monk Hwui Li about the life of Hiuen Tsang, whose direct disciple he was, the construction of the Nalanda Univercity was started by ‘an old king Śri Śakrāditya, for a Bhikshu of North India called Rāja-Bhāja. After beginning it, he was much obstructed (Śakrāditya), but his descendants finished it, and made it the most magnificent establishment in Jambudvipa’49. On the basis of this information, could be it possible that Rāja-Bhāja was no one else, but Bhartrihari? Since the name of Rāja-Bhāja did not appeared in any other scriptures as the name of a remarkable saint, why did Kumara Gupta I, has considered him worthy to built a hermitage for him? In accordance with the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, ‘rāja’ is identical with ‘rājan’, which could be translated as a king, sovereign, chief or best of its kind; and bhāja, which is derived from the root ‘bhāj’, could be translated as sharing or participating in, entitled to, possessing, connected with, liable to, forming a part of, belonging to, joined. Therefore, the name ‘Rāja-

48 Collected Papers On Buddhist Studies by Padmanabh S. Jaini, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi, 2001, p. 185-189; 49 The Life of Hiuen Tsang by the Shaman Hwui Li, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co., 1914, p. xxxvvi;

32

Bhāja’ could be translated as ‘connected or related with the king’ or ‘entitled to royalty’. In addition, being translated from the modern Hindi, the word Bhājana means ‘to put to flight’ or ‘to throw out’, or ‘to abandon’. Could it mean that Bhartrihari was enjoying the royal patronage of his brother Kumara Gupta I at the site of Nalanda for some time? It this point, the mistaken mention of the account of I-Tsing stating that Bhartrihari was contemporary with Dharmapala, also deserves to be noticed. After stating, that both were contemporary, I-Tsing directly proceeds to the episode of the life of Bhartrihari, in some monastery, without mentioning its name. From the narration of Hiuen Tsang, we know that Dharmapala was the abbot of the Nalanda monastery for some time. Could it be possible that I-Tsing has mentioned the same monastery as related to Bhartrihari? Also, the mention of Shaman Hwui Li, which states that ‘after beginning it, Śakrāditya was much obstructed’, could point to conclusion that probably at its primary stage, the Nalanda University was a Brahmanical institution, later converted to the Buddhist center of learning.

Nevertheless, in accordance with some Tibetan accounts and with the narration of Taranātha, Vasubandhu recognized as one of ‘the Pandits of Nalanda’, some sources even claim that he was an abbot of the same University, following his brother Asanga. In the Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition of Tibet, Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti are recognized as the six great commentators on the Mahāyāna Buddhist teachings, which also known as the Six Ornaments; Śākyaprabha and Guṇaprabha are known as ‘the Two Superiors’ (commentators). The same Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and Dharmakīrti were also included in the list of the Tibetan Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition mentioning ‘the Seventeen Pandits of Nalanda’. How then it could be possible that Vasubandhu has been the Pandit of Nalanda, if he never stayed in Nalanda? From various historical recourses, it is well known that Nalanda University was the center of learning specialized on the studies of Mahāyāna philosophy. The various rival traditions were studied there as well, to make the Buddhist monks capable to contradict their argumentation. The first appearance of Mahāyāna as the stand alone distinct tradition, has happened around the time of the emperor Kanishka, who reigned between 127-151 A.D. After appearance of few earlier works marking the emerging of ‘the new teaching’, it was elaborated by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, which are considered as the founders of the Mādhyamika philosophical school of Mahāyāna. The second important philosophical school of Mahāyāna, known as Yogācāra, has taken its shape as the result of the works of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, who are recognized as its first distinct Acharyas. Yogācāra could be translated as ‘the way of life through yoga’, and also known as Vijñānavāda or ‘the Doctrine of True Discernment’. Yogācāra is also known as the ‘consciousness-only’ philosophy, which asserts that the Pure Mind is the source of all phenomenal existence, and there is nothing exists besides the projections of the same Mind. Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva lived two hundreds years prior to Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, and definitely influenced their views. However, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu have chosen not to elaborate the tradition of their predecessors, but to create their own instead. Later on, the both these traditions have became famous as the two principal

33

philosophical schools of Mahāyāna, which were studied in Nalanda. Since it is quite clear that although Nāgārjuna (150–250 A.D.) and Āryadeva (3rd Century A.D.) are recognized as the Pandits of Nalanda, they could not stay there, because at their time, in accordance with the account of Fa-Hien, the University was not built yet. Therefore, in this context, it is more possible that they were titled as ‘the Pandits of Nalanda’ not because they were staying there, but because their works were studied there as the principal works. The same could be true also for Asaṅga and Vasubandhu as well. In accordance with the lineage of the succession of the abbots of Nalanda, traced from various sources, Dignāga (400-480 or 480-540 A.D.), was closely following Vasubandhu, and studied under his guidance for some time. May be his abbotship in Nalanda is quite doubtful, but he definitely stayed at the same University for some time50. Dignāga was followed by Dharmapala (530-561 A.D.), and Dharmapala was succeeded by Silabhadra (529-645 A.D.), whose life term was more then one hundred years, and who was alive at the time of Hiuen Tsang visit to Nalanda around the year 637 A.D. Since the gap between Dignāga (400-480 A.D.) and Dharmapala (530-561 A.D.) is too huge for them to be contemporary with each other, we can roughly place Sthiramati (470-550 A.D.) in between them, since he commented on the works of Dignāga. On the other hand, if we accept the later date of the life of Dignāga, which is 480-540 A.D., then he could not be contemporary with Vasubandhu, but probably he was recognized as his disciple because he learned from his works. In addition, it is quite possible that we cannot accept all above-mentioned chronological references as absolutely correct, but should allow inaccuracy of 20-50 years up or down. Dignāga could be contemporary with Bhartrihari, or closely following him, since in his work Pramāṇasamuccaya have appeared the quotations51 from the work Vākyapadīya of the second. Therefore, the date of Dignāga (400-480 A.D.), could be considered as the latest chronological reference to the period of the life of Bhartrihari. Dignāga also wrote commentaries on some works of Vasubandhu, titled Abhidharmakośa-marma-pradīpa and Aṣṭa-sāhasrika-prajña-pāramitā-sūtra, which makes it probable that Vasubandhu and Bhartrihari were contemporary to each other.

As about the earliest chronological reference to Vasubandhu, it can be traced from the works of Kumārajīva (334–413 A.D.), Fa-Hien (337–424 A.D.), Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.), Dharmakṣema ( 385–433 A.D.), Buddhabadra (359-429 A.D.) and Guṇabhadra (394-468), which are considered as nearly contemporary with Chandra Gupta II and probably closely preceding Vasubandhu. In this case, both the reference to Yogācāra, and its absence, are the matters which are counted. The account of the Chinese Buddhist monk Fa-Hien, who visited India in between 399 and 412 A.D. at the time of reign of the emperor Chandra Gupta II, is silent about both, Vasubandhu and the existence of the Nalanda University. In accordance with Fa-Hien, who visited the site of Nalanda few decades prior the time when the University was built by Kumara Gupta I: ‘A yojana south-west from this place brought them to the village of Nala, where Shariputtra was born, and to which also he returned, and attained here his pari- 50 Bu-ston, ‘History of Buddhism’; 51 Vākyapadīya 2.157, 2.160;

34

nirvana. Over the spot (where his body was burned) there was built a tope, which is still in existence.’52 Therefore, it could be possible that at the time of Fa-Hien visit to India, the Nalanda University was not built yet, and Vasubandhu did not come in prominence. Kumārajīva (334–413 A.D.), Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.), Dharmakṣema ( 385–433 A.D.) and Buddhabadra (359-429 A.D.) were Indian Buddhist monks, who visited China, and translated there numerous Buddhist works into the Chinese language. Out of them, Kumārajīva sometimes mentioned53 as the translator of two works ascribed to the authorship of Vasubandhu titled Śata Śastra and Bodhicittotpādana Śastra. However, this fact is much doubtful, and some scholars have objected its authenticity considering it as a mistake. Some accounts mentioned Fa-Hien as the direct disciple of Kumārajīva, and state that it the second, who instigated him to visit India. If the assertion that Kumārajīva has translated some works of Vasubandhu is true, then Fa-Hien must mention the second in his account, but as we can see, this does not happen. Since other Chinese disciples of Kumārajīva, such as Sengrui (371–438 A.D.), Seng-Chao (384–414 A.D.) and Tao Sheng (360 – 434 A.D. ), who continued his work, also silent about the existence of the works of Vasubandhu or Asaṅga, it could be possible that Yogācāra then was still not in prominence. In later times, as we can see, Yogācāra and Mādhyamika were always existing side by side, as the two principal philosophical schools of Mahāyāna, and the absence of any reference to the Yogācāra scriptures indicates that by that time they did not reach China.

Buddhabadra (359-429 A.D.), was another remarkable Buddhist monk, who went from Kashmir to China to propagate the Buddhist Dharma. The Chinese accounts about him are excited, describing him as the realized Siddha Yogi, endowed with the magical powers and omniscience. Buddhabadra arrived in China around the year 409 A.D., and stayed there until his death in 429 A.D. When he attained the age of 17, he was fully ordained as a bhiksu and learnt Buddhist meditation the Vinaya under Master Buddhasena in Kashmir54. In accordance with Chinese accounts55, Buddhabadra was contemporary with Kumārajīva, whom knew well even from the time of their staying in Kashmir, however Buddhabadra went to China later then Kumārajīva. In addition, it is told that Buddhabadra has undertaken the translation of few Buddhist scriptures in association with Fa-Hien. In accordance with the Chinese account, ‘when Buddhabhadra was seventeen, he with his Dharma brother Sanghadatta, who held him in great respect, studied several hundreds of sutras in the land of Kashmir. They had cultivated together for more than a year and yet Sanghadatta still had no inkling of the level of his partner's cultivation. One day, however, when Sanghadatta had locked himself in his room to meditate, Buddhabhadra suddenly appeared before him. "I thought I locked the door," said Sanghadatta. "How did 52 A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, being an account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien, of his travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414), translated by LL.D. James Legge, Oxford, 1886, p. 81; 53 On the basis of reference in the Chinese work, ‘Fayuan Zhulin’ or ‘Forest of Gems in the Garden of the Dharma’, which is a Buddhist encyclopedia compiled around 668 A.D. by Dao Shi; 54 The article Venerable Master Buddhabhadra and His Contribution to Buddhist Heritage of China by Min Bahadur Shakya; 55 Mostly from Kao Seng Chuan, "Records of Eminent Monks;

35

you get in here?" "I've just returned from the Tusita heaven where I visited with Maitreya Bodhisattva," Buddhabhadra replied. So saying, he vanished without a trace.56 When Dharma Master Chih Yen came as an envoy from China to invite some eminent monks to teach in China, he could not find anyone better then Buddhabhadra, ‘there were many high masters in Kashmir at the time, but they all yielded to Buddhabhadra. "This Indian Dharma Master," they said, "was born and raised in a great noble family57. As could be seen from the Chinese accounts, Buddhabhadra was a Sarvāstivādin monk who was well versed in various pre-Yogācāra scriptures and monastic discipline (vinaya), but more inclined towards meditative practices (dhyana). The mentioning in the account about him of the Tusita Heaven and the Bodhisattva Maitreya, indicates that these ideas conceptions were quite popular in Kashmir of his time. Although he did not translated any Yogācāra scripture into Chinese, it is much probable that he studied in Kashmir side by side with Asanga, and knew him personally, prior his departure to China. Probably both of them were the disciples of the same teacher. Buddhabhadra translated into Chinese the work named Yogācārabhūmi-sūtra, whose title is very similar with the title of work, written by Asanga Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, and which is sometimes confused with the second, but both these works are completely different from each other.

Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.) and Dharmakṣema ( 385–433 A.D.) were two other remarkable Buddhist monks of the same period, who contributed to the translation of numerous Mahāyāna works into Chinese. To both of them also attributed the translation of some of proper Yogācāra works58. In accordance with the Chinese sources, Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.) and Dharmakṣema ( 385–433 A.D.) translated the stand alone part of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra titled the Bodhisattva Bhūmi. Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra is an encyclopedic work, written by Asanga, and considered to be the direct revelation to him by the Bodhisattva Maitreya. In accordance with Hiuen Tsang account, ‘to the south-west of the city (Ayodhya) 5 or 6 li, in an extensive grove of Amra trees, is an old sangharama; this is where Asanga Bodhisattva pursued his studies and directed the men of the age. Asanga Bddhisattva went up by night to the palace of Maitreya Bodhisattva, and there received the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the Mahāyana Sūtrā Laṅkāraṭikā, the Madyānta Vibhaṅga Śāstra and rest, and afterwards declared these to the great congregation, in their deep principles.’59 Probably the first ever appearance of the Bodhisattva Bhūmi or ‘Sutra of a Bodhisattva's Spiritual States’ in China has taken place at the time of Dharmakṣema (385–433 A.D.). In accordance with the Chinese account, after Dharmakṣema has partly translated the Buddhist work

56 Records of the lives of the High Masters, written by the Venerable Master Hua, (adapted from the Kao Seng Chuan,"Records of Eminent Monks," T. 2059, p.334b:26), translated by Disciple Bhiksuni Heng Yin; 57 Records of the lives of the High Masters, written by the Venerable Master Hua, (adapted from the Kao Seng Chuan,"Records of Eminent Monks," T. 2059, p.334b:26), translated by Disciple Bhiksuni Heng Yin; 58 Yogācāra scriptures here means the works authored by Asanga or Vasubandhu; 59 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 226;

36

titled the Nirvāṇa Sūtra60 into Chinese, around the year 425 A.D., he discovered that the manuscript in his possession was incomplete. Therefore, to find out the complete manuscript, he undertaken two years long journey, probably into the North Western India. When he came back to China, he also brought along with him few more Buddhist works. It is believed that the Bodhisattva Bhūmi of Asanga was translated by him into Chinese prior 430 A.D., which marks it as the first appearance of the Yogācāra philosophy in China.

Gunavarman (367-431 A.D.?) arrived into China around the year 431 A.D. in response to the invitation of the Chinese emperor Wen of Liu Song (407–453 A.D.). The Chinese accounts about the period of his life in China apparently inconsistent, since they ascribe him the long period of staying in China and translating there numerous Buddhist works, but define the year of his arrival as the same year when he died, which is 430-431 A.D. Therefore, it could not be possible that he died at the same year when he reached China, which is around 431 A.D. In accordance with my calculation, his period of life must be somewhat from 380 A.D. to 445 A.D. This assumption was made on the comparing of two facts mentioned in the Chinese accounts, one of which is that he died at age of 65 years61, and other that he was thirty years old, when the king of Kashmir died without leaving successor62. From the account of Kahlana in Rajatarangini63, we learn that the king of Kashmir died without leaving progeny around five years before the demise of the emperor Chandra Gupta II-Vikramaditya, which is roughly 410 A.D. If we assume that the assertion of the Chinese account about Gunavarman stating that the same occurrence has taken place when he was thirty years old, then he must be born in the year 380 A.D. Since in the same account it is told that he died in the age of 65 years, then the probable date of his death could be calculated as 445 A.D. Since he arrived in China around the year 431 A.D., then the period of his life of fourteen years spent in China, compared with his activities there, appears as more near to correct. In accordance with the Chinese chronicles, Gunavarman has undertook the translation of the Bodhisattva Bhūmi, being asked by the monk of Ch'i Huan monastery, Huei I, in the middle of his staying in China64, probably around the year 435 A.D. It could be possible that this translation has been made on the basis of the same manuscript, which was brought to China by Dharmakṣema, and which was partly translated by him. After Gunavarman, Guṇabhadra (394-468 A.D.) was another Buddhist monk who translated some parts from Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra of Asanga into Chinese. He reached China around the year 435 A.D., by sea route from Shree Lanka, and stayed there until his death in the year 468 A.D. Since he stayed under the

60 In accordance with the Chinese accounts, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra was one of favorite works popularized by Fa-Hien; 61 The article ‘Gunavarman (367-431), A comparative Analisi of the Biografies found in the Chinese Tripitaka’, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, p. 24; 62 The article ‘Gunavarman (367-431), A comparative Analisi of the Biografies found in the Chinese Tripitaka’, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, p. 8; 63 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, vol. 1, p. 39-49; 64 The article ‘Gunavarman (367-431), A comparative Analisi of the Biografies found in the Chinese Tripitaka’, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, by Valentina Stache-Rosen, p. 18;

37

patronage of the same Chinese emperor Wen of Liu Song (407–453 A.D.), who welcomed Gunavarman, we can guess that both monks knew each other personally. In accordance with the Chinese accounts about Guṇabhadra, at the primary period of his staying in China, he did not know the Chinese language at all, so he has to relay on the help of interpreters. However, he knew numerous Buddhist texts, which he was narrating in Sanskrit from memory, and the team of translators was writing them down into Chinese. It also could be possible that partial translation by Gunavarman of Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, has been made in the same way. Some Chinese accounts recognize Guṇabhadra as the first proper translator into Chinese of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the scripture highly regarded by Asaṅga. The same Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is recognized as the one of important scriptures influencing the formation of the doctrines of Yogācāra. This edition by Guṇabhadra is said to be the one handed down from the founder of Chinese Zen, Bodhidharma65, to the Second Patriarch, Huike, saying:

‘I have here the Laṅkāvatāra in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism.’66

Besides references to translations by Bodhiruchi 504 A.D., whose date is still disputed, of some Yogācāra works, the first major appearance of Yogācāra works in China has taken place at the time of Paramartha (499-569 A.D.), who translated into Chinese few works of Vasubandhu and composed his biography. The account of Paramartha about the lives of Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, recognized by historians as the most important historical evidence about them. After Paramartha, it was Hiuen Tsang (602 – 664 A.D.), who made few more complete translations of the works of Vasubandhu and Asaṅga into Chinese.

As can be seen from the above mentioned information, at the time of life of Kumarajiva and the time of travel of Fa-Hsien in India, apparently no works of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu were introduced into China, but shortly after them, few of their works made their appearance there. However, few works preceding the formation of the Yogācāra school of philosophy, emphasizing the practice of meditation (dhyana) and asceticism (shila), were widely translated in China even around the time of Kumarajiva and Fa-Hsien. Therefore, it is quite probable that the major Yogācāra works of Vasubandhu and preceding him Asaṅga, were written around the period of reign of Kumara Gupta I (415-455 A.D.), in Ayodhya, which was then one of the capitals of the Gupta Empire at least for few decades. Consequently, it could be much possible that Asaṅga and Vasubandhu were contemporary with Vasurata and the brother of Kumara Gupta I, the prince Govinda Gupta. Since Vasurata is recognized as the teacher of Bhartrihari, prior his renunciation, it is quite probable that Govinda Gupta and Bhartrihari could be identical persons.

Mandasor Inscription of Dattabhata

65 Suzuki, D.T. Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. 1930. p. 5; 66 Suzuki, D.T. Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. 1930. p. 59;

38

Even if all above mentioned information about Govinda Gupta is true, and he was contemporary with Vasurata, do we have any further evidence to identify him with the legendary Raja Bhartrihari? After all, we know that the name of Govinda Gupta has appeared for brief period of three years, and then disappeared without any trace? Did he was the truly remarkable person of his time, as was the Raja Bhartrihari, who has been mentioned in the account of I-Tsing as ‘very famous throughout the five parts of India, and known for his excellences to the eight quarters’, or he merely disappeared into obscurity? After the gap of fifty years, following the issue of the seals of the king Govinda Gupta, the next appearance of his name, which has reached to our time, took place in the year 467 A.D., in the Mandasor inscription of Dattabhata. This inscription was found inscribed on a stone slab discovered in Mandasor (ancient Dasapura) in the Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh State, and survived in fragmentary state67. In accordance with the inscription, Dattabhata was the Commander-in-chief of a king named Prabhakara, who is called in the same inscription ‘the destroyer of the enemies of the Gupta dynasty’(Gupt-anvay-ari-druma-dhumaketuh) and the son of Govinda Gupta's general (senādhipa) Vayurakshita. Besides the same inscription, the name of the king Prabhakara did not appeared in any other historical source. If we accept that at the time of the ascend of Govinda Gupta as a king in 412 A.D., his age was 18-25 years, then at the time of appearance of the Mandasor inscription of Dattabhata in 467 A.D., his age must be 73-80 years old. The same inscription does not mentions, was Govinda Gupta alive at the time it was written, but seeing his probable age at that time, it appears as more likely that it was a posthumous inscription. The inscription records the erection of a Stupa and the pavilion for rest with attached to it garden (arama) and the excavation of a well (kupa) or water stall (prapa), all donated by the same Dattabhata. There are few things about this inscription, which are appearing as rather strange. As some researchers have noticed, the construction of Buddhist stupa was rather unusual in the area of Mandasor, known for it Brahmanical preference68. As matter of fact, ‘it is the first inscription recording the existence of Buddhist monuments (stupa) on that site, which has by large yielded only Brahmanical sculptures and monuments.’ 69 The names of the contemporary Gupta kings, Kumara Gupta I and Skanda Gupta who followed him, were not mentioned in the same inscription, for some reasons better known to its author. At the same time, the names of Chandra Gupta and his son Govinda Gupta were highly praised by the author of the inscription. The time of the inscription was mentioned not in accordance with the Gupta Era, but with Malava Era (Malava Samvat 524). The date is also significant (467-468 A.D.), for it was the year of Skanda Gupta's death and Puru Gupta's ascend to the throne.70 It was around the same time that Vakataka king 67 Gautama Buddha: 25th Centenary Volume, 1956. [Edited by N.N. Law.]. Calcutta Oriental Press, 1956, p. 92-93; 68 Gautama Buddha: 25th Centenary Volume, 1956. [Edited by N.N. Law.]. Calcutta Oriental Press, 1956, p. 93; 69 Costumes and Ornaments as Depicted in the Sculptures of Gwalior Museum, By Sulochana Ayyar, Mittal Publications, 1987, p. 19; 70 Costumes and Ornaments as Depicted in the Sculptures of Gwalior Museum, By Sulochana Ayyar, Mittal Publications, 1987, p. 19;

39

Narendrasena, who reigned from 450 to 470 A.D., considered it as the favorable moment to annex the Malwa Kingdom, using the temporary weakness of the Gupta Dynasty.

The following part of the same inscription even more interest for the present research. Because the proper meaning of this inscription is very important evidence about the relation of Govinda Gupta with the Gupta Dynasty, I decided to make my own partial translation of its text, on the basis of the Sanskrit input presented in the article ‘A Theatre of Broken Dreams, Vidisha in the Days of Gupta Hegemony’, by Hans Bakker.71

guptānvayavyomani candrakalpaḥ, śrīcandraguptaprathitābhidhānaḥ | āsīn-nṛpo lokavilocanānāṁ, navoditaś-candra ivāpahartā || 2 || Verse 2: In the sky (vyomani) of the Gupta (gupta) lineage (anvaya),

[where] the name (abhidhānaḥ) of the venerable (śrī) Chandra Gupta (candra gupta), equal to (kalpaḥ) the Moon (candra), is celebrated (prathita), has arisen (āsīt) a king (nṛpaḥ) distorting the eyes (vilocanānāṁ) of the world (loka) in the same way (iva) as the newly risen (navoditaḥ) moon (candra) causing [them] to be taken away (apahartā).

Note: Apparently the composer of the verse above has in front of him these two verses from the poem of Kālidāsa Raghuvaṃśa:

vaivasato manur nāma mānanīyo manīṣiṇām |

āsīn mahīkṣitām ādyaḥ praṇavaś chandasām iva || Raghuvaṃśa 1.11 || tadanvaye śuddhimati prasūtaḥ śuddhimattaraḥ |

dilīpa iti rājendur induḥ kṣīranidhāv iva || 1.12 || ‘First King was Manu, whom the Sun begot, wise, reverend, as the Holiest

Word Praṇava begins the sacred Hymns. In that unspotted line, Dilipa purer sprang, — among

Kings a Moon, as in the Milky Ocean Soma rose.’ bhuvaḥ patīnāṁ bhuvi bhūpatitvam, ācchidya dhīvikramasādhanena | nādyāpi mokṣaṁ samupaiti yena, svavaṁśyapāśair avapāśitā bhūḥ || 3 || Verse 3: [He] set aside (ācchidya) kings of the earth (bhuvaḥ patīnāṁ)

from their lordship (bhūpatitvam) over the earth (bhuvi) by the means (sādhanena) of [his] intellect (dhī)and valor (vikrama); of which (yena) even (api) today (ādya), the earth (bhūḥ) has not (nā) achieved (samupaiti) liberation (mokṣam), being bound (avapāśitā) by the bonds (pāśaiḥ) of his own family (svavaṁśya).

govindavatkhyātaguṇaprabhāvo, govindaguptorjita-nāmadheyam | vasundhareśas-tanayaṁ prajajñe, sa dityadityos-tanayais-sarūpam || 4 ||

71 The article ‘A Theatre of Broken Dreams, Vidisha in the Days of Gupta Hegemony’, by Hans Bakker, University of Groningen, p. 7;

40

Verse 4: Celebrated (khyāta) like (vat) the Lord Vishnu (govinda) for [his]

radiant (prabhāvaḥ) excellence (guṇa), decorated (ūrjita) with the holy name (nāmadheyam) Govinda Gupta (govinda gupta). The child (tanayam) born (prajajñe) of the Daughter of the Earth (vasundhara) and the Lord of Heaven (īśaḥ, the name of the Lord Śiva), he (saḥ) is the embodiment (sarūpa) of the sons (tanayaiḥ) of Diti and Aditi (ditya-adityoḥ) [i.e. the demons and gods].

Note: Diti was the name of the daughter of Daksha-Prajapati. She is an earth goddess and mother of the Marutas with Rudra. She is also the mother of Daityas with the sage Kashyapa. Aditi is a sky goddess of the Vedas and the mother of Devas (gods). In Hindu mythology, Devas or Suras emphasize positive ‘heavenly’ powers obedient to the Lord of Gods, and Daityas or Asuras emphasize self-willed negative ‘earthy and below’ powers; both parties are described as engaged in the perpetual fight with each other for supremacy. The Lord Śrī Nātha is the only deity, which united in himself the power of both, Suras (solar) and Asuras (opposite), beyond of conflicts.

yasmin nṛpairastamitapratāpaiś, śirobhirāliṅgitapādapadme | vicāradolāṁ vibudhādhipo ’pi, śaṅkāparītaḥ samupāruroha || 5 || Verse 5: To whose (yasmin) lotus (padma) feet (pāda) the heads (śirobhiḥ)

of kings (nṛpaih), beset (astamita) by [his] splendor (pratāpaiḥ), embraced (āliṅgita). The king (adhipaḥ) of the fickle (dolā) consideration (vicāra), destitute of learned men (vibudha), also (api) ascended (samupāruroha), being sized (parīta) by the fear (śaṅkā) [of being overshadowed by his glory].72

Note: from the context of this verse, it is quite obvious that the author has chosen the word vibudhādhipaḥ in order to emphasize its twofold meaning. From one side, when it is taken as the complete word, it can be interpreted as the not much common name of the Lord of Gods Indra ‘vibudhādhipaḥ’, which made its appearance in few Sanskrit works. The more popular form of the same name is ‘vibudhapati’. From other side, when it is split into two base words, it can be interpreted in two ways: the first meaning would be ‘a very wise king’ (vibudha -adhipaḥ), and the second would be ‘destitute of the learned men king’ (vibudha-adhipaḥ). Based on the context of the verse, I have chosen the meaning ‘a king destitute of the learned men’ (pandita). If this interpretation correct, then we can see the skillfully implanted suggestion pointing to the king Kumara Gupta I, whose title Mahendrāditya was also the one of names of the Lord Indra, and who was in accordance with the opinion of the author of the inscription, ‘a person destitute of the learned men’. Such suggestion of the author, could be based on the fact that his father Vayurakshita, and probably some other wise people of the administration of Chandra Gupta II, amongst which was Vasurata, were considered unworthy by capricious Kumara Gupta I, who was ‘of fickle consideration’. Even if we accept that my assumption is erroneous, and that

72 This passage has been translated by me on the basis of the Sanskrit text in the article ‘A Theatre of Broken Dreams, Vidisha in the Days of Gupta Hegemony’, by Hans Bakker, University of Groningen, p. 7;

41

Dattabhata plainly has mentioned the Lord Indra (the Lord of Senses), then also such statement is much meaningful, since Bhartrihari was an ascetic, who was supposed to conquer him by subjugating his own senses (indriya). However, such interpretation is not much likely, since the mention in the same verse of ascending (samupāruroha) of the same king (adhipaḥ), which could be interpreted as ‘going to heaven’ or in other words ‘dying’, more applicable to a man then to a god. Another probable interpretation of the same word samupāruroha could be ‘mounted up’ the throne.

After reading the passage above, few questions are coming up. 1) How that could be possible that an obscure king of the Gupta Dynasty, who reigned for a short period under the shadow of his great father, could be compared with the Lord Vishnu in his radiant excellence, and uniting in himself the powers of Gods and their opponents? 2) What reason has made, ‘the king of the irritated thinking’ Kumara Gupta I or probably the Lord Indra, to be jealous of the fame of Govinda Gupta? 3) How did he made the numerous contemporary kings to bow down to his ‘lotus feet’, being beset by his power or splendor (pratāpaiḥ), if we do not know anything about any conquests he ever made? 4) Why Govinda Gupta was mentioned in the same inscription as the descendant of Chandra Gupta II, but at the same time as the child of the Lord Śiva and the Goddess of the Earth?

However, all these questions could be easily solved up, if we accept that Govinda Gupta was no one else, but Raja Bhartrihari:

Answers 1, 2: It was Bhartrihari, who was ‘very famous throughout the five parts of India, and his excellences were known to the eight quarters’. The jealousy of Kumara Gupta I to the fame of his ‘obscure’ brother was not unreasonable, since his own fame remained as long as he was in power as a king, but the moment he was removed from his high social position, his name became sunken in the whirl of forgetfulness of following generations. At the same time, Bhartrihari was recognized as the great person of his age not because of the external attributes in his possession, but because of his personal qualities. After all, how many names of the great Gupta kings, we can expect to be known to common people even of the modern age remarkable for its wide literacy? Probably, there are only two of them, which are Raja Vikrama and Raja Bhartri. The rest names of the Gupta kings, no matter how great they were in their lifetime, have been lost in the darkness of ages, and remained there up to the present age, when they were rediscovered anew by the efforts of archeologists and historians. From the recently discovered historical evidence, we know that the father of Chandra Gupta II, Samudra Gupta, was also known as the great poet and warrior of his age, but the history is the best judge who came victorious in the contest for fame. Even nowadays, if we ask the same question from a person who is not specialized in the study of history, and who is not excessively educated, most likely we will repeat only the same two names, mentioned above. If we will continue ask him, about the particular details of the lives of these two kings, even uneducated person would easily answer that Raja Bhartrihari was a great king, who renounced his throne and became an ascetic, and Vikrama was the wise king, famous for his valor, learning, glory and victories. It could be possible that he will also mention that Vikrama has defeated Vetala (the being abiding beyond of the

42

surface of the earth). Perhaps we can expect smaller circle of people to be acquainted with the fact that Bhartrihari was also distinguished poet and grammarian, but for sure, nearly everyone in the modern India knows that he was the great king who has renounced his kingdom.

Answer 3: Probably Govinda Gupta has conquered the numerous kings of his age not by his military power, but by the power of his remarkable character, by the power of his firm detachment and by the power of his brilliant intelligence. In accordance with the opinion of Dattabhata, the conquests of Govinda Gupta were equally great with those made by his father.

However, if we accept that the personage of the poetical work Raghuvaṃśa, the king Aja was no one else but Govinda Gupta, which would be discussed in the next paragraph, then there is somewhat different interpretation of the same verse:

na kharo na ca bhūyasā mṛduḥ pavamānaḥ pṛthivīruhāniva| sa puraskṛtamadhyamakramo namayāmāsa nṛpānanuddharan ||

Raghuvaṃśa 8-9 || Raghuvaṃśa 8.9:’Without becoming neither harsh nor exceedingly mild,

but adopting a middle course, he (prince Aja) made his adversary kings bow down before him without extirpating them just as the wind bends down trees without uprooting them.’

Answer 4: In accordance with the Indian spiritual traditions generally, and the Natha Tradition in particular, the person who unites in himself the greatness of the austerity of the Supreme Lord Shiva and his consort the daughter of mountain Goddess Parvati, along with the wealth of the Sovereign Goddess of the Universe Lakshmi and the supreme detachment of her consort the Lord Vishnu, is known as Śrī Nātha. He is the Lord of the Right and Left, the Lord of the Union of the Sun and the Moon. Raja Bhartrihari has united in himself both these attributes, he had the remarkable detachment while he was wealthy as the king, and he manifested the supreme austerity when he became the great yogi.

Raja Bhartri as the king Aja of Raghuvaṃśa One more important source of information about the Gupta Dynasty is the

works of the great Indian poet Kālidāsa. Although his date is still disputed, some researches have identified the period of his life as somewhat around the reign of Chandra Gupta II, or shortly after him. It has been noticed by historians that the some works of Kālidāsa tend to embed in them lot of valuable information about the contemporary to him India. More then few historians have expressed the view that the work of Kālidāsa titled Raghuvaṃśa (Dynasty of Raghu), contains in itself the allusion to the Chandra Gupta II and his other work Kumarasambhava (Birth of 'Kumara' or Subrahmanya) was named so in reverence to Kumara Gupta I. Therefore, they have told, the poet Kālidāsa must have lived at the period of reign of these two kings.

43

The two personages of Raghuvaṃśa, the King Raghu and his son the prince Aja, are of particular interest for this research. In accordance with Raghuvaṃśa, both of them were reigning from their capital Ayodhya. Some researchers have noticed that the description of the conquests of the King Raghu, was mentioned the kingdoms and tribes, such as Hunas in particular, which were contemporary with the reign of Chandra Gupta II. Therefore, they have proposed a theory stating that probably Kālidāsa used somewhat modified details of the contemporary to him events in his composition. It is should be also mentioned that Raghuvaṃśa by no means cold be considered a proper historical work, since its main purpose was poetry, but defiantly it contains some remarkable details of the lives of the Gupta kings contemporary to Kālidāsa. It seems that Kālidāsa have accomplished two aims in his work at the same time, he got the minute details of the lives of the ancient kings, which he otherwise would not get elsewhere, and incorporated in the same work the description of the exploits of Chandra Gupta II and the great members of his family. Perhaps he started to work on the composition of Raghuvaṃśa under the direct instigation of Chandra Gupta II, and completed it in the middle of the reign of Kumara Gupta I. In the Ramāyana of Valmiki, who is recognized as the oldest Indian poet (ādi kavi), and whose work highly praised as the oldest Indian poetical work (ādi kavya), there is not found any detailed information about the king Raghu and his son the prince Aja. In the only brief mention made by him, it is told that Aja was the son of the king Nabhaga and the father of Dasaratha. Valmiki has placed two predecessors between the king Dilīpa and the king Raghu, and ten generations between the king Raghu and the king Aja. Besides the short genealogical reference, no any further information has been given about them, not even the names of their wives were mentioned. Since all other versions of Ramāyana were written later then the celebrated work of Valmiki, and then Raghuvaṃśa, it is most likely that when Kālidāsa has started to compose his work, he has at his disposition only that much information. Some other works, such as Puranas, generally agree that Raghu was succeeded by his son Aja, but sometimes considerably differ in placing the king Dilīpa. Since from other Indian epic works we can trace very few detailed information about the kings Dilīpa and Raghu and the son of the second, the prince Aja, it is much probable that the elaborated details of their lives were introduced by Kālidāsa, by borrowing them from the lives of contemporary to him great kings. At the same time, Kālidāsa was the master of his genre, he was not bluntly plain in his narration, and he liked that his readers ponder upon his composition and make their own discoveries. The way in which Kālidāsa presented the information about these kings has been adapted to suite the subject line of his narration, where all what was not fitting into it was cut out or changed. Thus, there is no any apparent reference to Rama Gupta, since it was not fitting to the line of the narration. Nevertheless, some important details are still could be apparently seen. Thus, Kālidāsa has given some very detailed description of the conquests of the king Raghu, which are considered by some historians as the direct description of the conquest march of Chandra Gupta II. While most researchers paid more attention to the allusion to the conquests of Chandra Gupta II, I have found that the story of the prince Aja also noteworthy for the present

44

research. It is quite probable that while Kālidāsa has wrote the character of the king Dilīpa from Samudra Gupta, the character of the king Raghu from the king Chandra Gupta II, the personality of the prince Aja could been sketched from the character of Govinda Gupta. The way how Kālidāsa described the great kings of the ancient lore, creates an impression that he was present at the scene when all those events took place. Although we can see that in accordance with Raghuvaṃśa, the king Aja has been succeeded by his son, Dasharatha, Kālidāsa has mentioned in the begging of the chapter about him that he was known amongst his subjects as ‘ equal in his abilities with the Piercer of a mountain’ (the name of the Lord Kartikeya). In the following verse, it is told that only two, the Bala-niṣudana (one of the names of the Lord Indra) and the king Daśaratha were pouring the timely rain to relive their fatigued by their work subjects; one was sending an actual rain from heaven, to water their fields, and other was reliving them with the rain of wealth. The mention of these two attributes at once, could lead to conclusion that Kālidāsa implemented there very subtle allusion to the king Kumara Gupta I, since his name Kumara is one of the names of the Lord Kartikeya, and his title (biruda) Mahendra is the name of the Lord Indra:

adhigatam vidhivadyadapālayatprakṛtimaṇḍalamātmakulocitam | abhavadasya tato guṇavattaram sanagaram nagarandhrakaraujasaḥ ||

Raghuvaṃśa 9-2 || ubhayameva vadanti manīṣiṇaḥ samayavarṣitayā kṛtakarmaṇām | balaniṣudanamarthapatim ca tam śramanudam manudaṇḍadharānvayam ||

9-3 || Raghuvaṃśa verseS 9.2-9.3: Since Dasharatha whose prowess was like

that of Kartikeya, the piercer of the mountain, dutifully protected the whole kingdom (lil. the circle of his subjects together with the citizens, that kingdom and subjects were all the more attached to him. The wise speak of only two personalities as removers of fatigue of subjects toiling for results like farmers or labourers, viz. one is Indra, the killer of demon Bala, for showering timely rain; while the other is king Dasharatha, the descendent of King Manu, for showering timely wealth on those toilers.

In such way, the question arises, who was the king preceded by Chandra Gupta II and followed by Kumara Gupta I? Since the details of the life of Dasaratha already were well known at the time of Kālidāsa from the other scriptures of the ancient Indian literature, from this point in his composition, Kālidāsa has followed the traditional accounts describing him. I do not want go there into much further speculations, or make some define assertions, but simply presenting below some passages from the text of Raghuvaṃśa, which I considered as most relevant for the present research. It could be considered as appropriate becouse one of them could be the probable grandfather of the Raja Bhartrihari, and other his father.

The description of the king Dilīpa, the father of Raghu, perfectly suits to the personality of the emperor Samudra Gupta, the father of Chandra Gupta II, as he presently known from the latest historical evidence:

45

‘First King was Manu, whom the Sun begot, wise, reverend, as the Holiest Word begins the sacred Hymns. In that unspotted line Dilīpa purer sprang, — among Kings a Moon, as in the Milky Ocean Soma rose. Broad-chested, tall as Shal-tree, as a bull wide-shouldered, long of arm, the warrior-race he seemed embodied, fit for famous deeds. All-glorious, all-surpassing, he bestrode —like Meru is, self — the Earth. His vigorous mind matched with his beauty, while his Holy Lore was equal with them: valor and success were twinned: and still his kingly virtues made him to his foes a terror, but his folk loved him and honored, — as the Sea yields pearls, yet nurtures monstrous births. He held the path that Manu traced, no hair's-breadth strayed his folk from that pure model. Save to guard the realm, no tax was taken: so the Sun derives so from earth that moisture which a thousand fold he soon gives back in rain. His armed host was escort only for the king, who used two arms alone in war, his insight keen in Holy Lore, and bow well-strung. Mankind knew his deep purpose when it came to fruit, not sooner: fathomless his mind and ways: — so here we reap the fruit of former lives! Fearless himself he guarded, duty's path he strictly followed, wealth he stored, nor grudged to spend that wealth, and not enthralled enjoyed his royal pleasures Wise, he spared his words, — mighty yet patient, generous secretly. Opposed virtues seemed in him twin-born. By sense unshackled, straining Brahma-wards, by duty curbed he pleasure, — that his age brought no decay. For nurture, maintenance, and for protection looked his folk to him; their parents gave life only. So the king repressed the sinful, held the world upright, loved virtue, wedded for the fathers' sake, kept righteous ways. As Indra does for corn, he drew from Earth her wealth for Sacrifice, — and both alternate mildly ruled the Worlds. His glory other kings despaired to reach, for theft, not grasped, lived in name alone. A worthy foe he honored, as one sick loves healing bitters; friends unworthy proved like hand snake-bitten did the king cast off. Him the Creator formed of choicest seed, to rear for men rich crop of good; alone he reigned over Earth, sea-moated, girdled round by ocean-ramparts, like a single town.

In accordance with Kālidāsa, in his great fame and power, the king Dilipa still lacked one thing, for he was childless. Therefore, he has to perform a penance, as the result of which he obtained his son Raghu.

The child grew up beneath his Father's eye, lord of all wealth, and day by day his strength increased, as summer Sun's still-growing power pervades the waxing moon… The Prince's childish locks had now been cut, as Law ordained, his childhood's comrades still preserving their long hair: the principles of learning he acquired, as streams suck up Great Ocean's water. Next, the sacred cord that marked his second birth, the noble child assumed, and sages taught him, fruitful soil for learning's seed: on well-prepared fields what work men spend will prosper. The deerskin next he donned, and from his Sire the spell-ruled weapon's use he learned: the king not only was sole Emperor, but in skill excelled all archers bold. As bull's estate a steer attains, or elephant's the calf, so Raghu passed from childhood up to youth, and bore a form of gracious majesty. His tonsure over, forthwith the careful king procured him worthy brides, who lovely shone as Daksha's daughters wedded to the Moon. With arms like beams, broad shoulders, mighty neck, a chest like portal wide, though Raghu seemed in strength

46

above his father, modestly he took rank lower. But the king, who long had borne the weight of rule, conferred on him the state of associate-king, by nature meek and training, to bear half the heavy charge. So goddess Fortune, loving aye the best, had left the King, who long had been her choice, and sought the heir, — as leaving parent flower for opening bloom.

Even, while being young, the prince Raghu has performed numerous glorious deeds, and when his time came, he was installed on the throne by his father Dilipa.

His soul from things of sense, he (Dilipa) quite withdrew, then solemnly gave over to his young son the kingdom, and himself went with his queen to hermits' shady grove, — the use of aged kings of Manu's race… Then Raghu took the Kingdom which his Sire had given, and shone more glorious, as at eve fire gains fresh splendor from the setting Sun; but at the news, in kings who hated him blazed wrathful fire from smoldering envy bred. His folk, in children rich, with hearts and eyes alike uplifted, rank on rank, rejoiced to see him raised on high like Indra's flag. For, mounted on his elephant, he seized at once his Father's throne and foemen's realms. Him, consecrate to undivided rule, with lotus-parasol the Royal State, sun-circled, hailed as Lord, while Eloquence — in bards embodied — loudly sang his praise with verse sincere; and treasure-yielding Earth, whom Kings from Manu onwards well had loved, wooed him as though she never had loved before. Like Southern breeze, which neither burns nor chills, while sternly smiting wrong he won men's hearts; by virtues excellent with joy he chased. What grief the people felt his Sire to lose, — as when the fruit appears, the mango's flower is scarce remembered. Men of counsel spread both good and ill before him; only good he chose, but never ill; peculiar grace the Primal Virtues won, — that all the World beneath his sway seemed new. By her cool rays the Moon refreshes, by his heat the Sun gives life; and he, who shining charmed his folk. -True ‘King ‘appeared, his wide-expanded eyes lit up his face, but Sacred Lore it was. Dividing subtle points of right and wrong that gave best insight, firm he set his throne on virtue based: — the grateful Earth reposed.

As it was told before, when the father of the prince Raghu, the great king Dilipa, has died, the kings formerly subdued by him, have raised rebellion, so that he has to conquer them once more. He patiently waited for the appropriate moment to come, and made all necessary preparations for his conquest of the World. When he found that the moment was most appropriate, he has stared his company of subduing the rebellious kings. He encircled the whole India from east to west and from south to north, by the march of his army, and subdued all kings on his way.

‘All realms subdued, home came the mighty Lord, while humbly kings, with heads not shaded now (by their royal umbrellas), received the dust raised by his chariot-wheels.’

‘Then Sacrifice he made for Rule Supreme by conquest won, when all his wealth a king bestows in alms; — as clouds store up the rain. To feed their bounty generous kings take tax. But when the solemn sacrifice was over, great Raghu, whom his ministers loved well, with signal honors healing first the wounds defeat had branded, sent away the kings who graced his triumph, — and who yearned to

47

clasp their long-forsaken queens, — dismissed in peace. Low bowed that royal band before his feet, not boastingly stretched out, with lines, and flags. And thunderbolts adorned, and jasmine white, which from their diadems those kings let fall.’

After the grandiose sacrifice performed to commemorate his victory (viśvajiti yajña) was over, the teacher of Raghu, Kautsa, has came to ask the king about money, so that he can pay fee to his teacher (guru-dakṣiṇā) Va-rata-ntu. Somehow, the king who was left penniless, has been able to fulfill his demand. It is said that at night the god of wealth has filled the king’s treasure with the rain of gold. After obtaining necessary amount of money, the sage blessed him with the son:

‘Now, the well-pleased Saint, at last consenting, took the golden store. Which camels bore and mares, and laid his hands on Raghu bending low, and parting blessed: — "While such a King rules men, well may the Earth yield wealth with which she teems; yet how conceive your fame, for whom even Heaven pours forth such store beyond men's asking? All things else you have, -save what I now bestow: receive a son rich as yourself in virtue, as your Sire got you, praiseworthy!’ Him the Saint thus blessed, then sought his Master.’

And now comes the description of the prince Aja: ‘And the King ere long received the promised son, as living souls from

sunlight power of seeing: for the queen at Brahma's hour, this told, brought forth a prince, as Uma's child resplendent, — whom his Sire named Aja, ‘Unborn’, from the Soul Supreme. His Father's joy was he, like him in might. Tall as himself, as vigorous, grew the Prince, as shines a fresh-lit lamp with equal light to that it springs from. Teachers trained the boy in lofty learning, radiant beamed his youth. And Fortune loved him well, yet seemed to wait (like bashful virgin), till the king his Sire should mate her with him.’

When the king Aja has became enough grown up, he was invited to the court of the king of Vidarbha Bhoja, to participate in contest for the hand of his daughter. When was in court of the king of Vidarbha:

‘The eyes of men forsook all other Kings to gaze on him, so, leaving woodland blossoms, wild bees swarm to streaming brows of elephants. As they sat, their royal lineage, drawn from Sun and Moon, bards skilled in olden story fitly praised.’

‘The Princess came, in wedding-vesture clad, on litter borne with solemn pomp, to choose herself a Lord, — and down the eager rows of suitors passed. -That perfect woman, Brahma's last best work, the goal of countless hearts, drew all their souls out through their eyes, — the lumpish clay alone remained behind.’

‘Then eloquent Sunanda, high-born dame who ruled the palace, led the royal maid.’

‘Dilipa's throne his son, unconquered Raghu, fills, who late made sacrifice for Empire won: bestowed his treasure wholly, all he had gathered up from Earth's four quarters and increased, nor kept aught save an earthen vessel. His renown cannot be measured, weighed, or told in words: It scaled high mountains, crossed wide seas, and passed the portals of Patala, — yea, has risen to Heaven, immortal. From his kingly loins prince Aja sprang, as fair Jayanta sprang from

48

Indra. Now, this prince bears half the weight of that high charge, his Sire otherwise has bore alone, unwearied, as a mighty bull-calf bears one-half the yoke. Choose him, bright Maid! Your peer he only is in beauty, lineage, youth, in virtues all, with modesty the chief: — Ah, let the pearl be set in finest gold!”

After the prince Aja has been chosen by the will of the princess Indumati, he has returned home.

“‘Now came he home, whom with his lovely wife king Raghu welcomed, knowing all the news and what had chanced. He then transferred the yoke of kingship to his son, and eager turned to tread himself the quiet way of peace: 'Such in the Solar line is ever use for monarchs when their sons have come to age.’”

‘What others seek by wrong to make their own, he took submissive from his father's hand, not lusting after power. Then Earth with him, by water hallowed and Vasishtha's spells, in wedlock joined, by exhalations dense showed joy untold.’

‘But when the father sought to take his place among the pious band, his new-crowned son, with head bowed low before him, prayed his Sire, not so to leave him orphaned. Then the King vouchsafed the boon — for well he loved his son, but took not up again his former state, as snakes resume not sloughs once cast away.’

‘So Raghu entered on life's latest stage, and freed from every care, in safe retreat, hard by the city dwelt, while daughter-like the Royal State performed her duteous part. Now in that Kingly house the reverend Sire had chosen peace; the Son in vigor ruled. Bright as is Heaven when day's great orb mounts high and sinks the moon, so Sire alike and son were both supreme, — one in the realm of war, and one of pious work. Each wore the dress which best befitted either, in the quest of earthly glory or of Final Bliss.’

‘Then Aja, who was moved to conquer realms not yet subdued, took counsel sage with men deep-versed in statecraft Raghu companied with holy hermits, seeking joys Supreme. On throne of justice Aja sat to watch his people's weal; his Sire, with senses quelled, slept on pure Kusha (grass), far from haunts of men, and weaned his thoughts from earth.’

‘The new-set king assiduous worked, nor ceased from worthy acts till dawned success; while plunged in thought his Sire, detached from every earthly bond or wish, sent forth his soul to join the Soul Supreme. Thus in his sphere each watched to quell his foes: — the one proud kings, the other worldly thoughts; one glory sought, the other Final Bliss, and each obtained his end.’

‘So Raghu passed, that loving father, years of calm repose, then, breaking from the gloomy chains of life, devotion joined him to the Changeless Soul. -When this was told to Aja, long he wept. Then summoned pious hermits, sacred Fire laid on the altar, and placed him in earth untouched by fire. Then offerings to the Shades he from mere love presented, — for this known that Saints departed need no funeral cake, nor claim it from their sons. By Rishis schooled, in Holy Learning perfect, overmuch he grieved not for that father passed to Heaven; but strung his conquering bow, and smiting down all rival kings, alone he ruled the World.’

49

After the departure of his father, Aja was ruling his kingdom, unrivaled, but his happiness did not last long. His bellowed wife has died duty minor accident, it is said that a ‘the rushing wind bore off the flowery crown that decked the lute celestial’ of Narada, which felt from the sky on her breasts. The king Aja has become overwhelmed with grief because of this:

“Deep mourned he, tears nigh choked him, his firm mind was broken — even as heat intense will melt the rigid iron. Ah ! How much the more grief melts men's hearts! Thus wailed the stricken King: — ‘If Fate by touch of flowers can kill, what dart may not be deadly when He seeks to slay? Or haply Death, to take a tender life chose shaft as tender: so, soft flakes of snow destroy the yielding lotus. Death perchance to slay me launched his arrow; while the tree yet stands unharmed, the creeper smitten falls. Ah, why — whom of forgiveness wrong I did — that you shut those lips from me without warning, who now have done no wrong? You doubt my love, O smiling Lady! Wherefore, scorning fraud, (my leave unasked) you took your way to Heaven.’”

‘My maimed life pursued you, but alone has now returned; why cannot I alone bear all the grief? Still on your face, fair spouse, tired love has left its trace, but soul is fled. Alas, how transient are the lives of men! No thought had I to vex you, — why have you left me dejected? You only have I loved, through Earth too calls me Lord, — Lord but in name. Ah, stately lady, now your rippling curls, bee-colored, wreathed with flowers, wave in air. And bid me hope that yet you will return again to bless my life: — wake soon, O Love! Soon bid my sorrow cease! The Snowy Mount has caves lit up by plants that nightly shed light through them: so return to melt my gloom! I grieve to see your face, which locks dispersed disfigure, mute — once eloquent, as when a lonely lotus slumbers, stilled the hum of bees that sleep there. Night regains her Moon, The cuckoo finds his mate, and parting's pangs are cured by meeting : — how can you, O Love, destroy my life by leaving me forever?’

‘Now you are gone. No more has prosperous course my widowed life, which owned no other joys, but all on you was centered! So the king with grieving words mourned for his Love, while sympathetic trees condoling shed their gums, like floods of tears. Then hardly from his lap had his loyal men removed the queen, now dead, and reverent laid on pyre of sandalwood with aloes mixed, clad rich for death. His royal heart thought scorn that men should say, ‘A king by private grief sank overwhelmed!’ So, though he cared no more to live his life, yet — fearing men's reproach — he dared not mount the pyre that now consumed his spouse, but it was not love of life withheld.’

‘Sorrow's dart had struck deep-rooted in his soul, as strikes a fig deep roots in palace-roofs: when sickness came to end his life, he welcomed its stern dint, as one that set him free to join his Love.’

The spiritual preceptor of the king tried to comfort him, but all was in vain, and in short time the king Aja has ended his life by starving himself to death:

‘First perfectly he trained his warrior-son the folk to guard, to smite the stubborn foe. Then, pining sore to quit the frame diseased that fettered him, the pious King resolved, renouncing earthly food and drink, to win Bliss Endless.

50

Wherefore to that holy place he went where Ganga meets Sarayus's stream. There shed his body, and regained his spouse, more beauteous than on earth: — now in the groves of Nandana they love and live for aye!’

Here are some details similar in the account of Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṃśa with the historically known information about the kings of the Gupta Dynasty. Kālidāsa has mentioned the capital of the kings Raghu and Aja as Ayodhya. This mention also has been found in the account of Paramartha about Chandra Gupta II -Vikramaditya and his son, who have their capital in the same city. Modern historians strongly doubted the authenticity of this assertion, but the light of Raghuvaṃśa, the rather strange shifting of the capital of the Gupta Empire to Ayodhya, by Chandra Gupta II, appears as quite logical. In his work, Kālidāsa has given the description of the kings Dilipa and his son Raghu as quite similar to the historical information about Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II known nowadays. The mention of the world conquest of Chandra Gupta II has been found in the inscription of his minister for peace and war Virasena, under Candragupta II, who knew the meanings of the words, and logic, and (the ways of) mankind, who was a poet and who belonged to (the city of) Pataliputra. He was in charge of peace and war (Sandhivigraha) and belonged to Kautsa Gotra. He knew the meaning of words, logic and the ways of mankind. He was further a poet and a native of Pataliputra. The inscription says that he came here accompanied by the emperor, who was seeking to conquer the whole world, and caused the cave to be excavated. The mentioning that Chandra Gupta II was empting his treasure to the point that his minister got scared also could be seen in the account of Hiuen Tsang.73 Although in Raghuvaṃśa there is not found the direct mention of the Rama Gupta, in the verse about the ascend to throne of the prince Raghu, Kālidāsa briefly mentioned that at that time, there were kings belonging to the dynasty of Dilīpa, who not welcomed the successor of Dilīpa:

dilīpānantaraṁ rājye taṁ niśamya pratiṣṭhitam|

pūrvaṁ pradhūmito rājñāṁ hṛdaye'gnirivotthitaḥ || Raghuvaṃśa 4-2 || Raghuvaṃśa Verse 4.2: On hearing that Raghu is established in kingship

in succession to his father Dilīpa, the fire of jealousy so far smoldering in the hearts of other kings belonging to the regime of Dilīpa blazed up.

If we accept that the account of the personality of the prince Aja by Kālidāsa was based on the real life story of the prince Govinda Gupta, then we can learn from it few important details of the life of the second. Thus, we learn that Govinda Gupta was resembling his father in his greatness, but was somewhat milder then he:

Raghu's way of incursion is rendered navigable as he manoeuvred the enemy kings in a variety of ways like making some of them to surrender their wealth, dethroning some or putting some more of them to rout, just like the pathway of a tusker will be rendered negotiable by that tusker in various ways like

73 Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), volume 1, by Samuel Beal, London, Kegan Paul, Trench Truner & Co., 1906, p. 107;

51

baring the trees of their fruits, shredding braches of some, or uprooting some more altogether. [4-33]

His way, like that of a mighty elephant cleared of trees which were plucked of their fruits, up-rooted and broken down in various ways, was clear (i.e. free from obstacles at the hands) of princes who were compelled to surrender their acquisitions, de throned and vanquished in various ways.

The subjects of kingdom have not regarded their new king Aja as a new entrant but as Raghu returned with youthfulness, why because, Aja has not only inherited the wealth of kingdom but all the personal traits from his father Raghu. [8-5]

Without becoming neither harsh nor exceedingly mild but adopting a middle course he made his adversary kings bow down before him without extirpating them just as the wind bends down trees without uprooting them.

While Kālidāsa has compared Chandra Gupta II with an elephant who deals with the enemy kings as if they were trees (Rv. 4.33), about Govinda Gupta it is told that ‘he made his adversary kings bow down before him without extirpating them just as the wind bends down trees without uprooting them (Rv. 8.9)

Kālidāsa and the King of Kashmir Since we can see from the lineage of the succession presented by Kālidāsa

in Raghuvaṃśa that it was extended up to the reign of Kumara Gupta I, it is most likely that this work was composed shortly after the death of Chandra Gupta II. More details about the circumstances when and where it was written, apparently could be traced from the historical work Rajatarangini of the Kashmirian historian Kalhana. The book Rajatarangini is both: the heaven and hell of historians. Heaven because this work contains in itself the valuable details of the lives of the ancient kings of India, not available elsewhere, and hell because their chronological details sometimes intermixed to the point of confusion. Such situation could be explained by the fact that Kalhana has composed his work around the twelve century, by incorporating into it details of few other ancient works. Sometimes it is happening that those accounts interfere with each other in the chronological lineage of succession of the king mentioned in it. In Kalhanha’s work, there is found a lengthy account describing Matri Gupta, who was the poet in the court of the king of Ujjain Vikramaditya and later reigned for five years as the king of Kashmir. After reading it, it seems that Kalhana has adopted this account from some much older work, probably written shortly after the events described in it have taken place. On the basis of this account, some historians have put the theory stating that the person mentioned by Kalhana as Matri Gupta, was no one else, but the celebrated Indian poet Kālidāsa. This theory is still the subject of controversy amongst historians, but in accordance with my opinion, it appears as rather correct. In accordance with the narration of Kalhana:

‘At this time there reigned a powerful king at Ujjayini named Vikramaditya otherwise called Harsha74. He subdued the whole world, and 74 Probably mistaken correction added later then the maint text was written;

52

destroyed the Shakas, a mlechchha (barbarian) tribe. He was a man blessed with uncommon good fortune, and was also a great patron of the learned. Now, in his court lived a great poet named Matri Gupta whose fame spread over many countries. He had visited several courts, and at lost fixed his residence at Ujjayini, induced by the liberality and justice of its king, and hoping that his services would be rewarded by one who discerned the merits of persons, and did not favor the hypocritical, the quarrelsome, or the pretentious. The king by his just awards had gained the hearts of all men, and no man of lore had to murmur at the gifts he received of the king. He marked the assiduity of those who served him, and if one could not please him by his work, his labor was indeed futile, like selling ice in the Himalayas. He had no servants to pander to his lust, or to speak ill of others, or who were jealous of strangers. He did not take the advice of conceited or self-willed persons, and even a bad man who was once acquainted with him, loved him.’75

Some time after Matri Gupta has been serving in the court of Vikramaditya, the king of Kashmir (probably Meghavahana from Gandhara Kingdom)76 has died77, without leaving a successor. The king Vikramaditya, being pleased by the service of Matri Gupta, after numerous tests, has sent him to accept the throne of Kashmir. Matri Gupta has obeyed his order, and he ruled the Kingdom of Kshmira nearly for five years, until the death of his great patron (415 A.D.). Immediately afterwards, Matri Gupta, has renounced his throne and went to Varanasi, with intention to renounce the world. Around the same time, the nephew or son of the former King of Kashmir (Meghavahana), mentioned by Kahlana as Shreshtasena and Pravarasena, who probably was also the tegin78 (tungjina) of one of the Huna tribes, was advancing with his army to attack the domains of Vikramaditya. In accordance with the account of Kahlana about him, ‘he set up the images known as Matrichakra and Pravareshvara, and several other images in old places. The prince thought that the whole world was entirely subject to him, and dedicated Trigarta79 (kingdom) to the god Pravareshvara, which he had set up. He ruled over other kings, and reigned for thirty years with mercy. He always liked to use his jeweled sword.’80

“When the prince arrived at Kashmira, he learnt the state of the country; and the ministers came to him, and were ready to revolt against Matri Gupta. But he declined to countenance their rebellion. ‘I am eager,’ he said, ‘to destroy Vikramadjtya, but I am not angry with Matri Gupta.’ ‘For what is the use of harassing those who are weak and cannot endure pain? There is glory in rooting

75 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 39-40; 76 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 36; 77 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 39; 78 Tegin means regional governor; 79 The ancient kingdom which included the areas around Kangra in Himachal Pradesh and the Eastern part of the modern Punjab State. 80 Kings of Kashmira, being a translation of the Sanskrit work Rajatarangini of Kahlana Pandita, by Jogesh Chander Dutt, Calcutta, London, Trubner & Co., 1897, p. 37;

53

out those who are strong. What can be more frail and feeble than the lotuses, which envy the moon, and what propriety is there that such lotuses should be torn by elephants' tusks? It is strange that one should show his valor on those who are not his equal; he who is really great will not be angry with his inferiors.’ He turned his army against Trigarta and conquered it, and commenced his march against Vikramiditya. But on his way, he heard that Vikramiditya was dead. This news so much afflicted him that he neither bathed nor ate nor slept that day but sighed and wept for his dead antagonist. On a subsequent day (after he learnedhe heard that Matri Gupta had left his kingdom, and had come out of Kashmira, and was in the neighborhood of the place where he himself then was. Suspecting that it was some of his partisans who had driven Matrigupta out of the kingdom, he went to the ex-king clad in a simple dress, and after the ceremonies of welcoming were over, gently asked him the cause of resigning his kingdom. The other replied after sighing, and with a sad smile, ‘O king, dead is that virtuous monarch who made me king, I am like a sun-jewel that brightens so long as the sun shines on it, but is a common stone when the sun is set.’ ’Who has injured you,’ then asked Pravarasena, ‘that you grieve for Vikramaditya, unable to be revenged on those who have done you harm?’ ‘Who is so strong as can injure me,’ asked Matrigupta with dignity, ‘think not that Vikramaditya poured ghi (clarified butter) on ashes, or sowed seeds on barren soil.’ ‘But,’ continued he, ‘even the inanimate objects are grateful to those who do them good. The sun-jewel looks dim when the sun is set, and so does the moon-jewel when the moon is out of sight. I will therefore go to the holy city of Varanasi, and enjoy the pleasures of devotion by being a hermit, for without Vikramaditya the world is dark. I cannot look on it through fear, far less enjoy it.’ Astonished at his words, the young prince replied, ‘True, king, that the world has produced jewels, since it is adorned by persons like you; who can understand human nature better than Vikramaditya, since he discovered your noble qualities. Long was the path to gratitude closed, now you are traversing the way. The low and the ungrateful think that it is through their good fortune that they receive gifts from their masters, and they argue that if they had not worth in them, their masters would not single them out, when there were other poor friends. Or if they had not discovered some faults in their masters, and if their miserly masters had not stood in fear of them, would they have given them away anything? But if a small benefit is done to the good, it increases a hundred-fold. You, chief of the virtuous, like a tested jewel, are loved by the good. So do me a favor by not resigning the crown; and let the people know, that I am too partial to men of merit. This kingdom was first given to you by Vikramaditya, I bestow it on you now, so accept it again.’ Matri Gupta heard this noble speech, and smiled and said, ‘I am compelled to be a little uncivil to give expression to my feelings, but though it may be harsh, yet I must say, that I disregard your noble gift. You know my former low position, and I know yours, our present greatness is felt by ourselves alone. You cannot understand the motive, which induces me to reject, nor can I understand that which induces you to offer me the kingdom. Being now a king, how can I accept your gift? Or if I had wished to enjoy the kingdom, why should I forsake it myself? Shall I slight the gift of my benefactor for mere enjoyment, and leave the duties that befit me now? The

54

benefit which he did to me, I can never repay, it is therefore lost in me. I will now follow him, and show that he was not mistaken in his estimation of me. This is all that I have to do in this world. This then I will perform, and leave off all enjoyment.’ Then Pravarasena said that he would not touch Matri Gupta's property, while he was alive. And when Matrigupta went to Varanasi and became a hermit, Pravarasena, true to his words, used to send him the income derived from Kashmir. Matri Gupta, on the other hand, distributed the money in charity to the poor; and thus lived for ten years. Thus, three men Vikramaditya, Matri Gupta, and Pravarasena vied with one another in virtue.”

It is quite probable that the names Matri Gupta and Kālidāsa were two different names of the same person. The first could be his adopted royal name, bestoved on him by Chandra Gupta, who probably has adopted him as his son before sending him to the kingdom of Kashmir, in such way making him to be qualified for the trone of the kingdom. The second name Kālidāsa could be his later ascetic name adopted by him in Varanasi. The name Kālidāsa is also very symbological and means the servant of the fierce Goddess of Time. From some other historical accounts, we also can learn that prior bestowing the throne of the King of Kashmir on Matri Gupta, Chandra Gupta tested him in his thoroughly in his own court, and also by sending him with some important missions to the courts of other contemporary kings.

From the account above, it is quite obvious that on his way to Varanasi, Matri Gupta has in his mind the creation of the biographical work, purposed to bring to the following generations the brief record of life of his loved patron, and the glory of his family. This work later has became famous as Raghuvaṃśa, which is recognized as the master stroke of the poet Kālidāsa. In the same way as the GovindaThe intention of ‘You cannot understand the motive, which induces me to reject, nor can I understand that which induces you to offer me the kingdom… Shall I slight the gift of my benefactor for mere enjoyment, and leave the duties that befit me now? The benefit which he did to me, I can never repay, it is therefore lost in me. I will now follow him, and show that he was not mistaken in his estimation of me. This is all that I have to do in this world. This then I will perform, and leave off all enjoyment.’

Some Further Considerations Besides the fragmentary historical evidences mentioned above, another

important source of the information about the personality of Bhartrihari are his written works. Since we know that prior to his renunciation Bhartrihari was study under the grammarian Vasurata, and later has became an ascetic of the Shaiva tradition, accordingly his works could be divided into two sections. The first of them are the grammatical works of Bhartrihari, concluding his study under his teacher and second are his poetical works, revealing his experience as an ascetic.

While Govinda Gupta has been shown as the proper successor of the missionary spirit of his father, Kumara Gupta I was shown as if he went astray.

Although Kumara Gupta I did not appeared in the inscription, the mention by Dattabhata of ‘the king of the fickle consideration’, who was ‘destitute of the

55

learned men’ and was jealous of the fame of Govinda Gupta, apparently points to him. As we already know, it was Kumara Gupta I, who put aside Vasurata, which was the celebrated person in the court of Chandra Gupta. Since the father of Dattabhata, Vayuraksha apparently was also dismissed by him, it points to some tendency in his behavior. From these we can guess that as both of these persons, which were selected personally by Chandra Gupta , who was famous for his ability to choose right people, were considered as useless by Kumara Gupta I, there could be few more cases of the same kind. This is probably how Kumara Gupta I has became recognized as ‘the king destitute of the learned men’, duty his capricious character and the lack of common sense. While his father Chandra Gupta was renowned for the attraction of all kinds of the distinguished scholars into his court, Kumara Gupta I, was a person who destroyed the work of his father. Although the disintegration of the Gupta Empire happened not at the time of his reign, he appears as the person who was responsible for it. Probably the lack of reliable and wise people in his administration has caused the downfall of the Gupta Empire, which occurred even in his time, and which has been mentioned in the inscriptions of Skanda Gupta. In the account of the Kashmirian historian Kalhana, there is found mention of the king of Kashmira fighting with the direct descendant of Vikramaditya, called Pratapshila or Shiladitya.

Pratapashila otherwise called Shiladitya, son of Vikramaditya, was expelled by his enemies from his father's territory. Pravarasena reinstated him, and brought back the throne of the kings of Kashmfra from the capital of Vikramaditya. Pratapasila for seven times refused to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of Kashmira, and the latter had to subdue him seven times. On the eighth occasion, Pravarasena called Pratapasila a brute and intended to take his life. The latter, however, saved himself by self-humiliation, and suggested that if he was a beast, his life was too insignificant to be destroyed. Pratipasila also amused the Kshmirian king by dancing before his court like a peacock, and imitating the voice of that bird; whereupon Pravarasena not only took him under his protection, but also bestowed riches on him.

Pratap type: The obverse of this type of coin has the figure of a man and

two women, one at the left and the other at the right of the man. Garuda-dhvaja is present at the back of the man. The name of Kumara Gupta is also written on this side whereas on the reverse of the coin Lakshmi is represented seated on the lotus. `Sri Pratap` is also written on this side on the coin.

In 420 AD the Indo-Sassanids were driven out of Afghanistan by the

Xionite tribe known as the Kidarites, who were then replaced in the 460s by the Hephthalites. It became part of the surviving Turk Shahi Kingdom of Kapisa, also known as Kabul-Shahan. According to Trkhu-l Hind by Al-Biruni, Kabul was governed by princes of Turkic

Raja Bhartrihari was contemporary with Vasubandhu, who defeated his

teacher Vasurata in debate, with consequences that the grammatical work of Vasurata consisting of 32 chapters has been destroyed. And indeed, there is no

56

work of Vasurata which has reached to our time. In his work Vakyapadya he has mentioned that his book is nothing else, but the teaching of his teacher, without mentioning his name. However, from some other testimonies it is becomes clear that the teacher mentioned by him was no one else but Vasurata. This fact along with his clear Brahmanic affiliation traced from all his works demonstrates that definitely he was not a Buddhist. The fact that he undertaken a work of restoration of the teaching of Vasurata, preferring to retain to Brahmanic orientation, indicates probable disdain with his brother, who took the side of Vasubandhu, and Buddhist side. The building of the Nalanda university was started by Kumaragupta 1, probably under the influence of Vausu Bandhu; in some accounts Vasubandhu and his brother Asanga are mentioned as closely connected with Nalanda University, some researchers believe that they were amongst its first rectors. Thus, we know that his disciple Dignaga, who was well acquainted with the works of Bhartrihari, was a rector in the same university. The fact that Bhartrihari has been able to accomplish his works points to conclusion that probably at his time the Gupta Empire was still stable. The fact that Vasubandhu has built the temples at Peshawar and Kashmira also points to the same conclusion. Therefore Baladitya who captivated Miharakula could be different from Baladitya who was a disciple of Vasubandhu. Most legends point to the extreme sensitivity of Bhartrihari, who was defeated not on battlefield, but by the tragic love story.