254 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. |December, 1905. 
There is a passage in Subandhu’s own work V4savadatta 
which seems to confirm my conclusion. In the preface to his 
Vasavadatta, he regrets that on the death of Vikramaditya, new 
people came to the front, the old taste for poetry was gone, and 
everyone’s hand was at his neighbour’s throat. It seems that on 
the death of Candragupta there was a civil war, and Subandhu 
came to grief, by supporting a losing cause. The successor of 
Candragupta Vikramaditya was Kumaragupta and not Candra- 
prakasa. 
Kern in his “Indian Buddhism” puts down Dinnaga between 
520 and 600 a.p. The Chinese think that he flourished in 
the tenth century of the Buddhist era, 7.e., between 420 and 520 
Ap. Takakusu, in his paper on the date of Vasubandhu, has 
shown from the dotted Buddhist records left by Indian 
pandits in Chinese monasteries, that the date of Buddha’s death 
is very nearly the same as has been arrived at by the Orientalists 
of Europe, viz., 480. B.c. 
I have got a quotation from Dinnaga’s work in Haribhadra’s 
famous work entitled “ Saddarsana Samuccaya.” He says that the 
definition of Pratyaksa or perception is @@aTqeayrei—and he 
also says that the Buddhists believe only in two sources of right 
knowledge. It is well known that Dinnaga discarded Sabda, 
or dogma, from the sources of right knowledge, and fixed the 
mumber of these sources at two; and Dinnaga’s definition of 
Pratyaksa is known to be @MaTsSaTeHyIe. So the quotation is 
from Dinnaga. 
Haribhadra was one of the great Jaina writers whose date 
of death is fixed by the universal tradition amongst the Jainas, at 
535 Vikrama samvat, ¢.e., 479 sp. The dates are given in 
two Prakrta gathas, in pp. 372 and 578, vol. iv. Peterson’s 
Reports. 
A study of Haribhadra’s work confirms the idea that he 
belonged to about the fifth century a.p. He does not know 
Vedanta as a system of Philosophy. He enumerates the following 
as the six systems :— 
Bauddha, Naiyayika, Samkhya, Jaina, Vaisesika and Mimam- 
saka. But, says he, if one considers Naiyayika and Vaisesika 
to be one and the same system, to him the sixth would be the 
Carvaka. All these stamp him as flourshing before the rise of 
Vedanta and Yoga. His Mimamsa does not show any sign that 
he knew Kumaérila. 
If Haribhadra, before 479 s.p., quotes from Dinnaga and 
adopts his view as universally accepted by Buddhists, Dinnaga 
must have flourished some time before him. 
Sadajira Sugiura, who writes a monograph on Hindu Logic 
as preserved in China and Japan, says that the name of Dinnaga’s 
teacher is not known. But Kern says he was a pupil either of 
Asanga or of Vasubandhu—two brothers who distinguished them- 
selves as Mahayanist writers. Takakusu places Vasubandhu in 
the reign of Skandagupta, and his son Baladitya in the seventies 
